TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): When, without any warning, the applicant walks down a central street in peak hour with 150 people, and it's inevitable that they will spill onto roads with traffic if the traffic hasn't been stopped there, it is obvious that bystanders can be shunted into the road.
GR1 (Government): When applicant disrupts people's evening in Moscow, in the very center of Moscow, without any warning, it is obvious that trouble may result.
GR1 (Government): When he organizes journalists to attend, making a way in front of him with cameras, the potential for accidents is clear.
GR1 (Government): Please let me just in two minutes then repeat and go through the episodes concerning this case.
GR1 (Government): On 5th of March, 2012, the applicant took part in a meeting in Pushkinskaya Square, which began at 7 o'clock, and it was agreed with the municipal authorities.
GR1 (Government): At the end of the meeting, at 9 PM, the participants decided not to disperse and to proceed with their legal gathering.
GR1 (Government): This gathering was attended by 500 people in the very center of Moscow, and standing in the front end, chanting slogans and disobeying lawful orders of the police.
GR1 (Government): Due to these events, on that day in Moscow, authorities had to divert six ordinary roads of public transport, which resulted in prolonged delays.
GR1 (Government): At 4 o'clock AM on 8th of May, 2012, the applicant marched down the Lubyansky Proyest, accompanied by around 170 people.
GR1 (Government): Given the fact that this meeting was a regular, the applicant was arrested, taken to a police station for drawing up a report, and released soon after that.
GR1 (Government): On the same day, just only one hour after being released, he once again participated in a regular meeting on Bolshaya Nikitskaya Street with 50 people there, and was taken also to police station, and another report was drawn up.
GR1 (Government): On 9th of May, 2012, at 5 o'clock in the morning, at Kudrinskaya Square, he took part in a regular meeting with a group of up to 100 people.
GR1 (Government): After one hour, police arrived and arrested the applicant.
GR1 (Government): 27th of October, 2012, as alleged by the applicant, he held a static demonstration in front of the investigation committee.
GR1 (Government): However, he had clearly organized more people to attend there, and this group of people intentionally participated in the event on the same place, with the same slogans, and on the same time.
GR1 (Government): Their collective purpose was in fact acknowledged by the Chamber of the Court in the paragraph 46 of his judgment.
GR1 (Government): And finally, on 24th of February, 2014, at noon, the applicant went to a regular gathering in direct violation of the rules against mass gatherings near the court buildings.
GR1 (Government): The applicant and his supporters blocked traffic on the very narrow street in the center of Moscow, and were peacefully invited by the police several times to free the area.
GR1 (Government): However, the applicant has ignored this invitation, proceeded with his illegal intention.
GR1 (Government): Later, the same day, repeatedly, about 7.45 p.m. in the evening,
GR1 (Government): the applicant took part in another regular gathering at Tverskaya Street, which is the busiest street in Moscow.
GR1 (Government): There was a gathering of about 150 participants, and when the applicant was seated in the police vehicle, he was waving at the crowd, trying to provoke unrest.
GR1 (Government): Later, he was also taken to police station for drawing up the report.
GR1 (Government): So the applicant understands that the law of prenotification is essential, and yet, he repeatedly and deliberately ignores national law and breaches it by failing to notify his protects to the authorities and failing to approve arrangements to ensure public order and safety.
GR1 (Government): Why he does that?
GR1 (Government): Let's turn to the evidence provided by the applicant himself, which were the selective video of his apprehension, and that the applicant relies upon to portray himself as the victim.
GR1 (Government): The video is carefully constructed.
GR1 (Government): Generally, it doesn't show the full lead up to the arrest.
GR1 (Government): Usually, the operator of the cameras stands away from the main area and just look at the police bus.
GR1 (Government): Quite clearly, the applicant's objective has been to breach the law deliberately, and we see there just the moment of arrest, but not the lead up to that.
GR1 (Government): However, on the same video, it is seen that policemen acted legitimately and gave clear direction each time before any actions.
GR1 (Government): For example, during the meeting of 24th of February, 2014, the police clearly warned the participants not to block the route.
GR1 (Government): At the event of 27th of October, 2012, the police clearly warned participants in non-agreed gatherings that their conduct would be considered a breach of the law.
GR1 (Government): During the event of 5th of March, 2012, police warned demonstrators to clear the route.
GR1 (Government): Compare recent events in Barcelona, for example, or in Kiev, where police acted roughly in the events of provocation.
GR1 (Government): By contrast, Russian police repeatedly show very considerable restraint.
GR1 (Government): For example, during the meeting on 24th of February, the police didn't disperse people immediately, even though the location was close to a court building where national law, as I said, clearly prohibits the holding of public gatherings.
GR1 (Government): On 5th of March, 2012, the applicant was apprehended almost two hours after initiating of a non-agreed meeting.
GR1 (Government): On 8th of May, 2012, the police waited for quite a long time before dispersing demonstrators.
GR1 (Government): Law enforcement was not severe or disproportionate.
GR1 (Government): The police never used tear gas, batons, water cannons, dogs, rubber bullets, or any kind of weapon in any of the episodes under consideration today.
GR1 (Government): The video material shows that Russian police repeatedly acted with moderation despite being provoked by the applicant's supporters.
GR1 (Government): The applicant does not, of course, acknowledge the motivation to present himself as a victim.
GR1 (Government): The most he does is try to diminish his offenses by describing the marches and demonstrators that he organizes without prior notification as a walkabout, which was also mentioned today.
GR1 (Government): I respectfully draw the court's attention, for example, the applicant's handwritten explanations in the police protocols and his oral submissions in the national court hearing.
GR1 (Government): On these occasions, applicant insisted that he did not participate in any public event, did not shout slogans, did not breach the law in public gatherings.
GR1 (Government): There is clear contradiction on the applicant's position himself.
GR1 (Government): If the events in question really were walkabouts and do not demonstrations, then according to the ruling in Anderson v. UK case, for example,
GR1 (Government): the Article 11 is not applicable at all.
GR1 (Government): And I quote the case, there is, however, no indication that freedom of assembly is intended to guarantee a right to pass and repass in public places or to assemble for purely social purposes anywhere one wishes.
GR1 (Government): Neither would Article 14 or 18 have any relevance here.
GR1 (Government): However, if the events would indeed be qualified as assemblies, then Russian authorities acted legitimately under the Russian legislation by subjecting the applicant to administrative liability.
GR1 (Government): The reality is that the applicant's so-called walkabouts really are marches and demonstrations that require notification, proper organization, and policy.
GR1 (Government): None of this meeting concerned was spontaneous, as applicant alleged, or has the form of immediate demonstration.
GR1 (Government): Large number of people do not gather spontaneously at 4 AM in the morning or after 10 PM at night, with representatives of mass media also forewarned and present there.
GR1 (Government): The applicant has never clearly answered basic question, that basic question about legal qualification of the relevant events planned by him.
GR1 (Government): But we get some clues in his written submission to this court where the applicant himself sees events in question as assemblies and call himself as demonstrator.
GR1 (Government): The applicant and his supporters are not above the law.
GR1 (Government): They have no right to organize marches and demonstrations without complying with the Russian law and protecting public order and safety.
GR1 (Government): On the contrary, other citizens also have the right under that law to public order and safety.
GR1 (Government): That law applies to the applicant just like everyone else.
GR1 (Government): From all I have described, it follows that enforcement of Russian national law in the instances under examination was in each case fair and proportionate, and law enforcement procedure fell within the margin of appreciation of Russian authorities.
GR1 (Government): It would be impossible to say that they acted without justification or in any way unreasonable.
GR1 (Government): Members of the ground chamber, the applicant further alleges that his arrest on seven occasions was unlawful, and then on two occasions he was unjustifiably detained pending administrative proceedings.
GR1 (Government): However, his complaints have no merit.
GR1 (Government): Consistently with Article 5, it was appropriate to arrest the applicant to terminate his illegal conduct, namely his leading of demonstrations and marches in breach of the law.
GR1 (Government): Doing otherwise would allow and even amplify the risks that the law was designed to prevent.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's short detention was also appropriate in order to take him before authorities to deal with his offenses.
GR1 (Government): As regard the applicant's complaints, the charge sheets were not filled out in the support the moment consideration of the circumstances show that these would not have been practicable and that the police applied the law as best they could.
GR1 (Government): For example, let me respectfully point your attention, for example, to the events of 26th of March last year when supporters of the applicant basically shook the police bus with the applicant inside trying to pull him out.
GR1 (Government): So would it be possible to write the report when you are surrounded by the violent crowd?
GR1 (Government): The police had every reason to believe the demonstrations in case under consideration could act aggressively.
GR1 (Government): For example, during the meeting on 5th of March 2012, some of the demonstrators punched hoods of cars.
GR1 (Government): The applicant wrote the following in his Twitter account on this day when he was arrested.
GR1 (Government): Our vehicle's number is 2012.
GR1 (Government): Attention, do not ban it, just puncture tires.
GR1 (Government): Just a few days before the meeting on 8th and 9th May 2012, there had been a large and very violent crashes and mass disorder during the famous Bolotnaya Square incident.
GR1 (Government): I would like to ask, did the police act under the standard of reasonableness when it removed the vehicle from violent crowd before filing out of the reports?
GR1 (Government): Or would the police in other member states of the Council of Europe behave in the same way?
GR1 (Government): The answer to both questions is clearly yes, as it was the police duty to prevent crashes.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, it is sensible to remove the activists of a non-agreed demonstration to eliminate tension in the crowd.
GR1 (Government): The applicant points out that this court expects flexibility in the application of public order laws when it comes to arrest.
GR1 (Government): But regarding public order and safety where arrests are necessary, flexibility, and very careful case by case, episode by episode analysis are also appropriate, as it was demonstrated by the chamber of the court when examining the violation of Article 6 and dismissing some of the applicant's claims.
GR1 (Government): It is also true with regard to Article 11.
GR1 (Government): It is natural that public order laws should carry penalties for breach, which adds to the importance of certainty, clarity, and consistency in their applications.
GR1 (Government): For all of these reasons, the court should not approve a tactic on the part of the applicant of deliberate failure to preemptify matches and demonstrations under the law.
GR1 (Government): On the contrary, I respectfully suggest that this court should make clear that if any group decides repeatedly to ignore national laws and public safety for political advantage, it should not expect indulgence or encouragement from this court.
GR1 (Government): The applicant claims that Article 6 was violated by refusal of the national court to quote certain evidences, including testimony of police officers, that apprehended him and instead accepting their written reports.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, I submit that this allegation also is ill-founded.
GR1 (Government): The court has sometimes criticized Russian courts for applying a presumption of good faith in relation to police officers and their written evidence.
GR1 (Government): However, such presumption is normal and necessary for the effective functioning of the justice system.
GR1 (Government): For the police, it is normal to produce a written report in relation to each incident.
GR1 (Government): For police officers, such actions are an everyday job.
GR1 (Government): On the contrary, some warning them away from law enforcement every time could paralyze the police service, and who, meanwhile, would do their job when they are going to the court each time by themselves.
GR1 (Government): It is up to the court to decide what evidences are sufficient to resolve the case in line with applicable legal standards.
GR1 (Government): I would also note that this court has declined to receive video and photos from the Russian government in the present case.
GR1 (Government): And on the contrary, it decides what evidences it regards as necessary in the case.
GR1 (Government): And the same credit should be given to the national courts to decide.
GR1 (Government): In this case, there was sensible and conventional law enforcement.
GR1 (Government): All of this means that Russian courts acted lawfully and reasonably in dealing with the applicants' trials.
GR1 (Government): All of this also means that the applicants' basis of complaints on conventional grounds is non-existent.
GR1 (Government): That perhaps explains why he attempts in new arguments under Article 18 and Article 14.
GR1 (Government): The applicant says that the authorities were motivated in applying the public order laws by legitimate motives of political oppression.
GR1 (Government): This is a hopeless argument for several reasons.
GR1 (Government): First, it doesn't follow from any single document submitted by the applicant that complaints of improper ulterior motives of discrimination were separately and distinctly formulated by him in any domestic proceedings and proceedings before the chamber of this court.
GR1 (Government): The fact that the point was not taken earlier and only in the application to the grand chamber, then, has been a failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
GR1 (Government): And the point can be taken now.
GR1 (Government): And relevant applications should be considered inadmissible.
GR1 (Government): If the court, however, decides that the complaints is admissible, I would like, following the court's invitation to make additional observation in light of Mirabishvili versus Georgia case, which, as I understand today, was ignored by the applicant's side, refer to the conclusion reached there by the grand chamber.
GR1 (Government): First, separate examination of a complaint under Article 18 is only warranted if the claim that a restriction has been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the convention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the case.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, Article 18 is only engaged where the actuating and predominant purpose behind a restriction was an illegitimate one.
GR1 (Government): If the predominant purpose was legitimate, an illegitimate subsidiary purpose is immaterial.
GR1 (Government): Regarding the first principle in Mirabishvili case, I respectfully submit that separate examination of the complaint is not needed in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, the applicant himself doesn't see complaints under Article 18 as a fundamental aspect of the case.
GR1 (Government): As said above, he paid no or very little attention to this alleged aspect of the case in his initial complaints and observation before the chamber, as well as in any domestic proceedings.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, he provides no evidence specifically relevant to Article 18.
GR1 (Government): The chamber, in its judgment, also considered the examination on this complaint unnecessary because all of the material evidence has been considered as part of examination of the applicant's allegation under so-called substantive articles, namely 5, 6, and 11.
GR1 (Government): Thirdly, the chamber approach in this regard followed the court's practice, according to which arrest for participation in a regular demonstration doesn't trigger separate examination of the complaints on Article 18.
GR1 (Government): The court has already examined six cases concerning similar complaints of Russian opposition members, for example, Nemtsov, Yashin, and Kasparov, whose level of recognition is comparable to the applicant or even higher, and complaints on Article 14 of Armenian opposition.
GR1 (Government): In none of these cases did the court regard it necessary to examine Article 18 or Article 14.
GR1 (Government): Fourthly, measures applied to the applicant are in no way comparable to those in cases where the court found the Article 18.
GR1 (Government): Timoshenko has been sentenced to seven years of real imprisonment, Mamadov to seven years, Jafarov to six and 1 and 1 2 years, and Mirabishvili to five years.
GR1 (Government): The applicant's arrest within the period concerned today lasted only once for seven and other time for 15 days only.
GR1 (Government): In all other episodes, he was sentenced to non-substantive fines.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was not physically excluded from political and social life.
GR1 (Government): On the contrary, during the period under examination, which is years 2012 to 2014, he enjoyed all opportunities to actively participate in it.
GR1 (Government): For example, in 2013, he participated in a mayor election in Moscow as a candidate.
GR1 (Government): He continued to write his blog.
GR1 (Government): He really started his YouTube channel in that times and was in no way deprived of the freedom of movement, not then and not now, which respective judges can see by their own eyes today.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the complaint under Article 18 doesn't constitute the fundamental aspect of the case.
GR1 (Government): Thus, no further investigation to Article 18 is needed.
GR1 (Government): If the court nevertheless decide to proceed with that, there can be no doubt regarding the second principle in Mirabishvili case that no political background is involved and that the sole and actuating purpose of the authorities in applying this national law was protecting public order and safety.
GR1 (Government): That is apparent from the following facts.
GR1 (Government): First, in four out of seven cases considered, the applicant participated in gathering which occurred outside the time limits prescribed by the law directly, which is from 10 PM to 7 AM.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was an advocate, obtained a law degree, and alleged himself publicly to drive his own law practice.
GR1 (Government): Even if he was not a lawyer, his repeated personal experience of these laws must have made him an expert in them.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the applicant couldn't be unaware of the prescribed time limit and deliberately breached the law in two episodes, as I said, repeatedly in the same day after release from police.
GR1 (Government): Second, the applicant continues now the practice of systematic and intentional provocations.
GR1 (Government): For example, before the public gatherings on 26th of March, 2017, according to his website, the applicant tried to convince members of the public to behave in such a way that the police would have to arrest them for a breach of national law.
GR1 (Government): According to the applicant's blog, namely to the note published on 22nd of March, 2017, he also promised large sum of money to be received from this court to people who would follow his guidance to participate in non-agreed manifestation.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the blog makes clear that most of the applicant's income derives from his action as a lawyer specializing in the practice of European court.
GR1 (Government): By inspiring people to participate in non-agreed gatherings, the applicant serves his own political and personal gain.
GR1 (Government): Third, statistics show that authorities followed no other aim except stopping breaches of the law.
GR1 (Government): From 2010 to 2015, the percentage of the authorized meetings in support of applicant in Moscow was 78%, which is quite similar to the general percentage of the authorization granted by the powers.
GR1 (Government): The authorities do not restrict the applicant and his supporters and their desire to publicly press their political views.
GR1 (Government): For example, around 250 public events in support of applicant were authorized in the period of only 40 days in autumn last year throughout Russia.
GR1 (Government): The applicant himself participated only in 26 public events from these.
GR1 (Government): And for the same period, including five which were not agreed still.
GR1 (Government): For example, on 8th of December 2017, eight meetings in different cities were agreed with the authorities in his support.
GR1 (Government): However, he chose to participate in non-agreed event on the same day on another city.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was never detained during authorized gatherings.
GR1 (Government): For the period under consideration, he took part in pre-notified events without any interference and arrest.
GR1 (Government): On 24th of December 2011, on 4th of February 2012, on 25th of February 2012, and on 9th of September 2013, the applicant was never the only person detained during the events under consideration, which we will see also in the video provided by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to his allegation, he was never targeted or discriminated.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the applicant deliberately chose to organize and participate in irregular, non-authorized gatherings.
GR1 (Government): It is clear that the reason for it is the interest of arrests on his popularity and level of recognition.
GR1 (Government): According to the statistics of the independent Levada Center, recognition has increased for 10% after the applicant participated in non-agreed gatherings in 2012.
GR1 (Government): Thus, knowing that the administrative fraction would favor his popularity, the applicant consciously breached national law on public gatherings.
GR1 (Government): Honorable judges, I would like to reiterate that the underlying incentive behind the actions of the police was the need to follow procedure prescribed by law that falls into margin of appreciation of a Russian Federation.
GR1 (Government): The law was enforced against the applicant exactly in the same way as against other people.
GR1 (Government): He suffered no discrimination for his political opinion.
GR1 (Government): As the court stated in Khodorkovsky versus Russia case, a large political status of a person cannot grant immunity for violations of law.
GR1 (Government): Experts hope that the court will provide encouragement for the applicant to continue his practice of provocations.