BLATOVA A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 81928/12
Olga Dmitriyevna BLATOVA against Russia
and 6 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 February 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos. 39218/13 and 1897/14, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention (see the appended table).

THE LAW

1. Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

2. Complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events) and Article 13 of the Convention (lack of effective domestic remedies)

The applicants complained about the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events and the absence of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.

The Court observes that the applicants challenged the decisions of local authorities disapproving the locations of their public events in the domestic courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicants brought these proceedings after the planned dates of their public events. The Court has already found in Alekseyev v. Russia (nos. 4916/07 and 2 others, §§ 99 and 100, 21 October 2010) that the judicial remedy of a post-hoc character the applicants had recourse to was incapable of providing adequate redress in respect of the alleged violations of Article 11 of the Convention. The applicants therefore should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the judicial review as a remedy in respect of their complaints so as to reasonably anticipate the application of the six-month requirement in their case (see, for similar approach, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, §§ 14-16, 27 November 2018). Accordingly, they should have lodged their complaints within six months of the date of the local administrations’ decisions banning their public events (see Komarova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 44570/11, § 18, 26 May 2020).

In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 March 2023.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention

(restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events)