Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Алексеев (Alekseyev) против России» [англ.]

n rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons from any attempts to unlawfully disrupt or inhibit the effective enjoyment of their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
16. Member states should take appropriate measures to prevent restrictions on the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly resulting from the abuse of legal or administrative provisions, for example on grounds of public health, public morality and public order..."
52. On 6 June 2006 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issued the following press release:
"In a statement given in St Petersburg yesterday, Commissioner Hammarberg stressed that the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly belong to all people and that the authorities have a duty to protect peaceful demonstrators. The Commissioner regrets that his statement has been misrepresented by the news agency RIA Novosti (Report by RIA Novosti dated 5 June 2006 at 13:33)."

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention

53. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to peaceful assembly. He claimed that the ban repeatedly imposed by the Moscow authorities on holding the Pride March and the picketing had not been in accordance with the law, had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a democratic society. He relied on Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State."
54. The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the authorities had acted lawfully and within their margin of appreciation when deciding to prohibit the events at issue.

A. Admissibility

55. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties' submissions

(a) The Government
56. The Government contended that the ban on the events organised by the applicant had been imposed in accordance with the law, had pursued a legitimate aim and had been necessary in a democratic society.
57. They first pointed out that Article 55 § 3 of the Constitution and section 8 (1) of the Assemblies Act should be construed as providing for restrictions on public events on safety grounds and for the protection of public order. In the present case, the events which the applicant had sought to hold had carried an obvious risk of confrontation between the participants and their opponents. They claimed to have received numerous public petitions from various political, religious, governmental and non-governmental organisations calling for the ban, some of which included threats of violence should the events go ahead. They were therefore concerned about the safety of the participants and the difficulties in maintaining public order during the events.
58. The Government further claimed that Article 11 § 2 should be interpreted as providing for a wide ma



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 19 20 21

	Поделиться:	Tweet