Communicated on 21 January 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 36072/07
Olga Vladimirovna KURNOSOVA against Russia
lodged on 6 August 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Olga Vladimirovna Kurnosova, is a Russian national
who was born in 1961 and lives in St Petersburg. She is represented before
the Court by Ms O. Tseytlina and Mr S. Golobok, lawyers practising in
St Petersburg.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
On 21 March 2007 the acting Moscow prosecutor suspended the
activities of the National Bolsheviks Party pending judicial banning
proceedings on the basis of section 10 § 1 of the Suppression of Extremism
Act (see below).
On 5 April 2007 a special issue of Petersburg Ahead, Yabloko Party
newspaper distributed in St Petersburg, was released. The applicant was the
executive editor of that special issue dedicated to the March of Dissenters
scheduled for 15 April 2007. It called for participation in the March
organised by a coalition of opposition groups and explained its aims and
political demands. It also published an item by Mr Dmitriyev, the leader of
National Bolsheviks of St Petersburg. The item described the previous
March of Dissenters that had taken place on 3 March 2007 and criticised the
authorities’ violent response to it. It claimed that many participants to the
March, including elderly persons and women, had been beaten up by the
police. The item also stated that although the National Bolsheviks were
under the threat of a ban, they did not give up their fight for truth and
expected to meet their supporters at the March of Dissenters of 15 April
2007.
On 14 April 2007 the St Petersburg office of Yabloko Party was searched
by the police and copies of the special issue of Petersburg Ahead newspaper
were seized.
2
KURNOSOVA v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS
On 15 April 2007 the Justice of the Peace of the 201th Court Circuit of
St Petersburg found the applicant guilty of a breach of the established
procedure for conducting public assemblies, an offence under
Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code. The Justice of the
Peace found that the applicant should have known about the suspension of
the activities of the National Bolsheviks Party. Despite that she had
published an item by the Party’s St Petersburg regional branch’s leader
calling for participation in the March of 15 April 2007. She had thereby
involved a suspended association into participating in a public assembly
organised by her, in breach of section 16 of the Suppression of Extremism
Act (see below). The Justice of the Peace ordered that the applicant pay a
fine in the amount of 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB, about 28.5 euros
(EUR)).
The applicant appealed. She argued, in particular, that she had complied
with the procedure for conducting public assemblies established by the
Public Assemblies Act and her liability under Article 20.2 §§1 of the
Administrative Offences Code had therefore had no basis in law. Nor had
the publication by her of an item by Mr Dmitriyev been in breach of the
Suppression of Extremism Act. Firstly, Mr Dmitriyev had written the item
in question in his private capacity of a supporter of the National Bolsheviks
ideology rather than in his capacity of a member of the suspended National
Bolsheviks Party. Secondly, the applicant could not have known about the
suspension of the Party’s activities because the item had been given to her
on 18 April 2007, while the Party’s activities had been suspended on
21 April 2007.
On 31 May 2007 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg upheld
the decision of 15 April 2007 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful,
well-reasoned and justified.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Suppression of Extremism Act (Federal Law no. 114-FZ of 25 July
2002, as in force at the material time) provides that the competent official
who has applied to a court for dissolution or banning of a public or religious
association on the ground of its extremist activities may take a decision to
suspend the activities of that association pending the dissolution or banning
proceedings (section 10 § 1). This decision may be appealed against to a
court (section 10 § 2). If the activities of a public or religious association
have been suspended, that association may not issue mass media, use Stateowned of municipal mass-media, organise public assemblies, take part in
elections or referenda or use its bank accounts (section 10 § 3). If the
application for its dissolution or banning is rejected by a court, the
association may resume its activities after the judgment becomes final
(section 10 § 4).
The Suppression of Extremism Act further provides that it is prohibited
to resort to extremist activities during gatherings, meetings, demonstrations,
marches or pickets. Organisers of public assemblies are responsible for
ensuring that that prohibition is complied with and for stopping any ongoing
extremist activities without delay. Before a public assembly the organisers
must receive a written warning in this respect from the police (section
KURNOSOVA v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS
3
16 § 1). It is prohibited to involve extremist associations into participating
in public assemblies, to use their attributes or symbols or to distribute
extremist materials (section 16 § 3). If any of the above occurs during a
public assembly, the organisers must immediately take measures to stop
these breaches of law. If the organisers fail to take such measures, the
assembly may be terminated by the authorities and the organisers may be
held liable in accordance with law (section 16 § 4).
At the material time a breach of the established procedure for the conduct
of public assemblies was punishable by a fine of 1,000 to 2,000 Russian
roubles (RUB) for the organisers of the assembly, and from RUB 500 to
1,000 for the participants (Article 20.2 §§ 1 and 2 of the Administrative
Offences Code).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the fine
imposed on her interfered with her freedom of expression. The interference
was unlawful because Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code
imposed liability for the breaches of law committed in the course of public
assemblies. It was not applicable to publications, including those dedicated
to public assemblies. Moreover, domestic law was unforeseeable in its
application. The prosecutor’s decision to suspend the activities of the
National Bolsheviks Party was not published. Nor was it final at the
moment of the publication of the contested item by the applicant as judicial
review proceedings were pending. The applicant therefore could not have
foreseen that the publication of the item in question would make her liable
under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code. She further
argues that the item published by her was written by Mr Dmitriyev in his
private capacity of a supporter of the National Bolsheviks ideology rather
than in his capacity of the leader of the suspended National Bolsheviks
Party’s regional branch. At the material time Russian law did not explicitly
prohibit a publication of an item written by an alleged leader of an
association whose activities were suspended. Finally, the applicant
complained that the interference was not “necessary in a democratic
society”.
4
KURNOSOVA v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the fine imposed on the applicant in the administrative offence
proceedings interfere with her rights under Article 10 of the Convention,
interpreted in the light of Article 11? Was that interference in accordance
with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of
Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2?