Condemnation for a banner with provocative political content. Right to protest. No violation of the freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Manannikov v. Russia 01.02.2022 (app. no. 9157/08)
SUMMARY
Banner against Putin in a political demonstration in favor of Putin. Imposition of a small fine of approximately 14 euros. Right to demonstrate but also to counter-demonstrate. Freedom of expression.
The applicant, a human rights activist, participated in an official demonstration in support of President Putin in the run-up to the December 2007 parliamentary elections and the March 2008 presidential election. They raised a banner reading “Putin is better than Hitler.” This action created tensions and the police ordered them to lower the banner, however they refused to do so and continued to hold it throughout the event.
Based on the material from the site of the public demonstration, the court found that the applicant had unfurled a provocative banner, which was contrary to the program and purpose of the demonstration. The people present at the event reacted negatively and asked him to lower the banner. Following these events, the applicant was charged with an administrative offense of “breach of the rules governing the conduct of public events”, and was fined Rs 500 (equivalent to EUR 14). He appealed, but the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision.
Citing Article 10 of the ECHR, he complained that his right to freedom of expression had been violated.
The Court held that the police order to remove the banner and the applicant’s conviction amounted to “interference” with his right to freedom of expression which was “provided for by law” and which pursued the legitimate aims of “preventing disorder”. And “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. The Court then found that, in the specific circumstances of the case, it had not exceeded what was “necessary in a democratic society”, as the banner was not provided for in the program of the event, was provocative and could lead to unrest.
As the national courts found, the police order came from the applicant’s conduct, which had been considered provocative by some of the participants in the event and from their negative reaction, and not from the content of the banner itself.
In conclusion, the order of the police authorities to remove the banner did not seem irrational or excessive and could be considered in line with the lawfully pursued objectives of preventing unrest.
Given that the applicant was not called upon to leave the event, his conviction and the fine, which was the minimum amount laid down in national law, did not appear to be excessive.
The ECtHR therefore did not find a violation of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR).
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
In the run up to the legislative elections of December 2007 and the presidential election of March 2008, a number of public events in support of the acting President, Mr V. Putin, were held in Russia.
The applicant, a human rights activist, decided to attend one such public gathering aimed at supporting the economic and political ideas of Mr Putin on 27 October 2007. He went to the event together with Mr B.
The public gathering received official approval and took place in Lenin Square in Novosibirsk from 12 noon to 12.30 p.m. Several thousands of people were present. Many of them waved banners in support of Mr V. Putin. The gathering attracted media attention. The applicant and Mr B. placed themselves among the participants and raised their banner that read “Putin is better than Hitler”. According to the footage of the event examined by the domestic court, two participants of the assembly were displeased by the banner and asked the applicant and Mr B. to remove it, but the applicant and Mr B. continued displaying it.
Then police officers, who were present at the venue ordered the applicant and Mr B. to remove the banner, but they refused to do so. They continued to be present at the meeting holding their banner. At the end of the meeting, three people in plain clothes approached the applicant and Mr B., seized their banner and teared it up. The applicant alleged that those people were undercover police officers.On the way home the applicant was approached by police officers, who took him and Mr B. to a police station and kept them there while an administrative-offence report was prepared.
On the same day a justice of the peace of the 1st Circuit of the Tsentralniy District of Novosibirsk examined the administrative case against the applicant. On the basis of the police footage from the site of the public gathering the court established that the applicant had unfurled a provocative banner, which ran contrary to the programme of the event. People present at the meeting reacted negatively and asked the applicant to remove the banner. In that situation the police officers lawfully ordered him to remove the banner, because its display posed a real threat to public order, health and lives of the participants. However, in breach of section 6(3)(2) of the Public Events Act the applicant refused to follow that order. In the courts’ view his conduct amounted to “a breach of the established rules for the conduct of public events”, an offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereafter “the CAO”). The court fined the applicant for 500 Russian roubles (RUB) (equivalent to 14 euros (EUR)).
The applicant then appealed to the Tsentralniy District Court of Novosibirsk, which examined his appeal on 28 November 2007. The court endorsed the findings of the lower court. In particular, it noted that the applicant had not disputed the facts of the case. The court agreed with the assessment of the provocative content of the banner and with the assessment of threat to public order posed by the applicant. According to the Tsentralniy District Court of Novosibirsk, the legal classification of the offence was correct, and the fine was not disproportionate.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 10: The police order to remove the banner and the applicant’s conviction had amounted to an “interference” with his right to freedom of expression which had been “prescribed by law” and had pursued the legitimate aims of “prevention of disorder” and “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. The Court then found that, in the specific circumstances of the case, it had not gone beyond what had been “necessary in a democratic society” for the following reasons.
The impugned police order had been based on the considerations that the banner had not corresponded to the programme of the event, had been provocative and could have resulted in unrest. Given that the domestic courts were better placed to assess what was likely to be considered provocative and offensive by the society, and that the text on the banner had been ambiguous, the Court gave credence to the domestic courts’ finding that the banner could have in fact been perceived as offensive by some of the participants. Indeed, comparing Mr Putin with Adolf Hitler could be seen as something other than support for the President’s policies. The Court therefore accepted that the display of the banner could have resulted in a conflict between the applicant and the participants in the public event.
That by itself could not however justify an interference with the fundamental right provided for by Article 10. A demonstration might annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it was seeking to promote. Moreover, the Court has consistently underlined the importance of the right to counter‑demonstration, which could be held at the same time and venue with a demonstration. The right to counter demonstration, however, was not absolute, as in a democracy it could not extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right to demonstrate. Further, the Contracting States had a duty to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully. These principles, which had been formulated in cases concerning freedom of assembly, were fully pertinent to the present case, given that the applicant had expressed his opinion during a public event. Bearing them in mind, and as the domestic courts had found, the police order had been triggered by the applicant’s conduct which had been considered provocative by some of the participants to the event and by their negative reaction and not by the banner’s content as such.
Indeed, the applicant’s location among the demonstrators had been a key factor; he had chosen to raise the banner in the middle of a crowd of his opponents, although nothing had prevented him from taking a place in an adjacent area. The banner had distorted and undermined the message of support to Mr Putin that other participants and the overall demonstration had wanted to convey. It had also made it difficult for the police, who had been best positioned to evaluate the security risks and those of disturbance as well as the appropriate measures dictated by the risk assumption, to ensure the peaceful conduct of the event. Their order to remove the banner therefore did not appear to have been unreasonable or excessive and could thus be considered proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
Lastly, bearing in mind that the applicant had not been removed from the event, his conviction and the fine, which was the minimum amount provided by domestic law, did not appear to be excessive.
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
