5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Syktyvkar. 6.  On 19 September 2015 the Federal Security Service (‘the FSB”) and the Investigations Committee of the Russian Federation announced that criminal proceedings on suspicion of membership of a criminal gang and fraud had been opened against the Governor of the Komi Republic, Mr Gaizer, one of his deputies, several high-ranking officials in the Komi Republic government, the speaker of the Komi Republic parliament and a representative of the Komi Republic in the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament. All of them were arrested on the same day. 7.  On 21 September 2015 the applicant, together with Ms S., notified the Syktyvkar Town Administration of their intention to hold a “picket” (пикетирование) from 5 to 6 p.m. on 25 September 2015 at the crossroads of Lenin and Kommunisticheskaya streets behind the Lenin monument, which fifty people were expected to attend. The aim of the event was to “discuss the arrest of the Komi Republic government”. 8.  On the same day the applicant published a copy of his notification of 21 September 2015 on his Internet blog. He said that the aim of the “picket” was to let the people express their thoughts about the arrests of members of the Komi Republic government. Any opinions – from approval to criticism of the arrests – were welcome. He hoped that the “picket” would be approved. However, if the town administration proposed to hold it on the outskirts of the town, a “people’s assembly” (народный сход), which did not require prior notification, would be held at the same location (behind the Lenin monument). The applicant then criticised the fact that regional governors were appointed by the President and expressed the wish that governors be elected by the people. He asked why Mr Gaizer had been appointed governor of the Komi Republic in 2010 if, according to the investigators, he had been a member of a criminal gang since 2006. He then said that the accusations against Mr Gaizer and the others seemed to be based on a very slim evidentiary basis, which gave reasons to believe that the criminal proceedings against them were politically motivated. In his opinion, Mr Putin was trying to frighten other governors into submission. In any event, appointed governors always served the interests of those who had appointed them. He therefore wanted to propose a discussion about the future of the Komi Republic and, in particular, about whether the people wanted the next governor to be appointed or elected. 9.  Later on the same day, 21 September 2015, the Syktyvkar Town Administration refused to approve the venue chosen by the applicant, pointing out that regional law no. 91-RZ of 20 November 2012 [sic] prohibited the holding of public events in Stefanovskaya Square (see paragraph 34 below). The town administration proposed that the “picket” be held at one of the special locations for public events designated by the Komi Republic government. The applicant received that decision the following day, 22 September 2015. 10.  On 22 September 2015 the applicant published a new entry on his Internet blog, informing his readers that the town administration had refused to approve the venue behind the Lenin monument, and enclosing a copy of its decision of 21 September 2015. He said that a “people’s assembly” would be held instead at the same location and time. He explained that a “people’s assembly” was an assembly of people who gathered to discuss without there being any organisers. Unlike a “picket”, it was not possible to use placards during a “people’s assembly”. The applicant then stated that the official who had signed the refusal to approve the “picket” was the same official who had been responsible for a 30% increase in the cost of heating in the previous two years. 11.  On 23 September 2015 the applicant also published a post on VKontakte,[1] calling for participation in the public discussion on 25 September 2015. 12.  On 24 September 2015 the applicant’s VKontakte account was blocked by the VKontakte administrator following an order by the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media and a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. The deputy Prosecutor General found that the VKontakte post described in paragraph 11 above, which was publicly accessible, contained information about a “picket” to be held on 25 September 2015 at the crossroads of Lenin and Kommunisticheskaya streets. The town administration had, however, refused to allow the “picket” because it was prohibited to hold public events at that location. The post therefore amounted to campaigning for participation in an unlawful public event in breach of section 10 paragraph 1 of the Public Events Act (for a summary of the domestic law provisions, see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 249, 7 February 2017). The applicant’s VKontakte account therefore had to be blocked pursuant to section 15.3(1) of the Information Act (see paragraph 36 below). 13.  On 25 September 2015 the applicant published a third entry on his blog. He asked what would happen if many people came to the “people’s assembly” later that day. He did not believe that it would make the Kremlin change its politics, appoint a responsible local person as the governor of the Komi Republic or stop unsubstantiated accusations against Mr Gaiser. He claimed, however, that a high participation rate would show that there were many people who were not afraid to express their opinion. The FSB and the Prosecutor General’s office were afraid of politically active people. He called on everyone to come to the people’s assembly to prevent similar situations in future. 14.  On the same day the administrator of the Internet site that hosted the applicant’s blog informed him by email that access to the three blog entries described in paragraphs 8, 10 and 13 above had been restricted on the order of the Prosecutor General’s office because they had been found to contain calls to participate in public events held in breach of the established procedure. 15.  At about 7 p.m. on 25 September 2015 about fifty people gathered near the Lenin monument. The “people’s assembly” went peacefully and without any disturbance. 16.  On 26 October 2015 the applicant challenged before the Syktyvkar Town Court the town administration’s decision of 21 September 2015 refusing to approve the location of the “picket”. He submitted, in particular, that the “picket” had been intended to take place fifty metres from Stefanovskaya Square. In any event, it would not have caused any disturbance or inconvenience. The special designated locations proposed by the town administration would have been unsuitable. 17.  On 18 November 2015 the Syktyvkar Town Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. After citing Article 11 of the Convention, the applicable domestic provisions and the Constitutional Court’s decision of 2 April 2009 (see a summary of the domestic law provisions in Lashmankin and Others, cited above, §§ 255-59), the court held:
“The complainant’s argument that the event would lose its purpose if held at the locations proposed by [the town administration] is unsubstantiated.
In substance the law requires organisers to make reasonable and sufficient efforts to reach a compromise on the basis of a balance of interests in order to enjoy the right to freedom of assembly. In a situation where there is no ban on holding a public event but rather an alternative location is proposed, the organisers may not reject without valid reasons the conditions proposed by the authorities for holding the event.
Decree no. 598 of 25 December 2012 by the Komi Republic Government designated [special locations for holding public events in Syktyvkar], having ensured that they were in keeping with the aims of public events and accessible by public transport, permitted the organisers of, and participants in, public events to use public utility facilities, respected sanitary norms and rules, and guaranteed the safety of the organisers of, and participants in, public events.
The [town administration’s] decision of 21 September 2015 mentioned those locations, de facto proposing them as an alternative [to the location chosen by the applicant].
[The town administration’s] decree no. 9/3483 of 4 September 2013 amended [its] decree no. 10/4160 of 28 October 2008 on locations (plots of land) where public events were prohibited. In accordance with the amended decree, it is prohibited to hold public events at the location chosen by the complainant – at the crossroads of Lenin and Kommunisticheskaya streets.
In such circumstances the municipal authority’s proposal to change the location of Mr Kablis’s public event was well reasoned and lawful ...
The court considers that the refusal to approve the location for the reasons advanced in the [town administration’s] decision was lawful and acceptable ...
The [town administration’s] decision of 21 September 2015 in Mr Kablis’s case was made within the time-limit established by law and contained reasons justifying the impossibility of holding the public event at the chosen location, a well-reasoned proposal to change the location and an explanation of the procedure for notifying public events. The complainant was not therefore deprived of a possibility to enjoy his constitutional right to hold [public events] in accordance with the procedure established by [the Public Events Act].
The complainant’s rights and freedoms under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention were not restricted by the contested decision; there were no obstacles preventing the complainant from enjoying his constitutional rights.” 18.  The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that the crossroads of Lenin and Kommunisticheskaya streets was outside the area where public events were prohibited by regional law no. 91-RZ. The town administration’s decree no. 9/3483, which allegedly prohibited public events at that location, had never been published and was therefore not accessible to the public. 19.  On 28 January 2016 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the judgment of 18 November 2015 on appeal, finding it lawful, well reasoned and justified. It held:
“The [district] court rejected the complaint on the merits because the contested refusal to approve the chosen location of the picket had been made by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The municipal authority had given the complainant an objective possibility to enjoy his constitutional and Convention rights.
The [district] court correctly applied [the Public Events Act] providing for the conditions for enjoying the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution ...
Having assessed the evidence in the case file, the [district] court made a correct finding that [the town administration’s] proposal to change the location of the public event chosen by the organisers had been substantiated, well reasoned and justified by the necessity to respect the balance of interests of the parties and to ensure public safety.
As correctly established by the [district] court, it is prohibited to hold public events at the location chosen by the complainant – at the crossroad of Lenin and Kommunisticheskaya streets.
Decree no. 598 of 25 December 2012 by the Komi Republic Government designated [special locations for holding political public events in Syktyvkar].
The choice of a location for an event and its approval by the municipal authorities does not restrict the participants’ right to freedom of opinion and expression. The argument that it was impossible to hold the event was hypothetical and did not refer to any valid reasons explaining why the locations proposed by [the town administration] were incompatible with the public event’s purposes sought by the organisers and its social and political significance.
The [district] court correctly held in the judgment that in accordance with Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the enjoyment of one’s rights and freedoms must not breach the rights and freedoms of others. Therefore, the holding of a public event by some citizens must not create a situation where other citizens are arbitrarily deprived of a possibility to enjoy their rights in accordance with the established order and traditions.
There were therefore objective and sufficient reasons – explaining why it was impossible to approve the location of the public event chosen by the organisers – for the proposal to change the location with the aim of ensuring a balance between the rights of the organisers and those of third persons.
[The town administration] did not omit to examine the request for approval of the location of the public event and gave its reply to the complainant within the statutory time-limit. The reply contained reasons explaining why it was impossible to hold the public event at the chosen location and a well-reasoned proposal to change the location. In the court’s opinion, the complainant’s constitutional rights and interests were respected and there was no violation of Article 11 of [the Convention] guaranteeing freedom of assembly, or of [the Public Events Act]. The law does not guarantee the organiser of a public event an unconditional right to hold a public event at the location which he considers the most relevant to its political and social significance.
[The town administration] fulfilled its statutory obligation to propose an alternative location for the public event that was compatible with its purposes. The locations proposed were an adequate alternative to the chosen location and were in keeping with its purposes.
The [district] court therefore correctly rejected the complaint.
The arguments set out in the appeal submissions are limited to a statement that the contested decision of [the town administration] refusing to approve the location chosen for the public event in Stefanovskaya Square had breached the complainant’s rights to freedom of assembly, expression, conscience and religion. These arguments are based on an incorrect assessment of the facts of the case and an incorrect interpretation of the applicable legal provisions. They do not therefore warrant the quashing of the [district] court’s judgment ...
The contested decision of [the town administration] was in accordance with [the Public Events Act], was made within the municipal authorities’ powers and was in the interests of ensuring public order, with the aim of preventing disorder, protecting health and morality, and safeguarding the rights and freedoms of others. It did not therefore breach the complainant’s rights.” 20.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. He repeated his previous arguments and added that public events were regularly held at the crossroads of Lenin and Kommunisticheskaya streets. 21.  On 19 July 2016 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Presidium of that court for examination, having found no significant violations of substantive or procedural law which had influenced the outcome of the proceedings. 22.  On 25 December 2015 the applicant challenged before the Syktyvkar Town Court the decisions of the prosecutor’s office to block his VKontakte account and three entries on his Internet blog. He argued that they had not been necessary in a democratic society and had therefore breached his right to freedom of expression. He claimed that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage. 23.  On 5 April 2016 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. After citing Article 10 of the Convention and section 15.3 of the Information Act (see paragraph 36 below), and noting that the town administration had refused to approve “the picket” at the location chosen by the applicant, the court held:
“Despite the lack of approval for the public event, [the applicant] described the preparations for holding it on his page on a social networking site, VKontakte, and on his blog ..., calling on an unrestricted audience to participate in an unauthorised public event ...
In the present case, access to the information published by the claimant was restricted because he had breached information distribution rules, in particular by distributing information containing calls for participation in a public event to be held in breach of the established procedure.
In such circumstances, the restriction had a basis in law and pursued the aim of preventing breaches of law in the sphere of distribution of information. Contrary to the claimant’s allegations, his freedom of expression was not restricted, because access was blocked to information distributed in breach of the law, rather than in connection with the contents of the claimant’s statements about the aims of the notified public event (to discuss the arrest of the Komi Republic government).
Restriction of access to the entire VKontakte account rather than to the specific post also had a basis in law, which in substance provides for restriction of access to an entire account, taking into consideration the nature of real-time distribution of publicly accessible content on the Internet.
In view of the above, and given that it is possible for the claimant to create and distribute new Internet posts, the claimant’s personal non-property rights were not breached. The claim must therefore be dismissed.” 24.  On 7 July 2016 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld that judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. 25.  On 14 December 2016 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic refused to refer a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant with the Presidium of that court for examination. It held, in particular, that calls for participation in public events held in breach of the established procedure were incompatible with public order. The restriction on access to information containing such calls pursued the aim of preventing more serious violations of public order. 26.  On 31 January 2017 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal for consideration by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, finding that no significant violations of substantive or procedural law had influenced the outcome of the proceedings.