5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kazan. 6.  On 2 March 2017 Aleksey Navalnyy published on YouTube a documentary entitled “Don’t Call Him Dimon[1]” denouncing Prime Minister Mr Medvedev for alleged corruption. He called on his supporters to protest on 26 March 2017. 7.  Mr Navalnyy’s followers in many towns notified the local authorities of their intention to hold public assemblies against corruption on 26 March 2017. In the majority of cases the local authorities refused to allow the assemblies. 8.  Despite that, according to media reports, between 32,000 and 93,000 people in ninety-seven towns took part in the country-wide anti‑corruption protest on 26 March 2017. Between 1,666 and 1,805 people were arrested and convicted of administrative offences. 9.  In response to the call by Mr Navalnyy to protest against corruption, on 14 March 2017 the applicant notified the Kazan Town Administration of her intention to hold a meeting from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. on 26 March 2017, which 150 people were expected to attend. She proposed three alternative sites for the town administration to choose from, including a specially designated location for holding public events in Krylya Sovetov Park. The aim of the event was to protest against corruption and to demand Mr Medvedev’s resignation. 10.  On 16 March 2017 the Kazan Town Administration refused to approve the meeting, claiming that other (unspecified) public events were scheduled at the locations chosen by the applicant at the same time. 11.  The applicant challenged that refusal before the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan. 12.  On 17 March 2017 the applicant and Mr B. notified the Kazan Town Administration of their intention to hold a “picket” (пикетирование) against corruption from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. on 26 March 2017. She proposed four alternative sites for the town administration to choose from. 13.  On 21 March 2017 the Kazan Town Administration refused to approve the “picket”, claiming that other (unspecified) public events were scheduled at the locations chosen by the applicant at the same time. It proposed another venue for the “picket”. On 22 March 2017 the applicant accepted the venue proposed by the town administration for the “picket”. 14.  On 23 March 2017 the applicant published a message on VKontakte, criticising the town administration for its decision not to allow the meeting. She stated, in particular, that the decision of 16 March 2017 had been unlawful because the town administration had not proposed alternative locations for the meeting. She further claimed that the town administration could not refuse to allow the meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park because it was a specially designated location for public events. If another event was scheduled at that location, the town administration had to propose another time for the meeting. In any event, Krylya Sovetov Park was very large and there was enough space for several simultaneous events. She also said that the decision of 16 March 2017 had been challenged before a court and that the proceedings were still pending. She stated that people were entitled to assemble peacefully and that it had therefore been decided to hold a meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park at 2 p.m. on 26 March 2017 to protest against corruption. The message ended as follows:
“Invite your friends to join the group. We demand answers in the streets of Kazan! The meeting point is near the main entrance to Krylya Sovetov Park in Kopylova street, underground station Aviastroitelnaya.” 15.  On 24 March 2017 the Vakhitovskiy District Court allowed the applicant’s claim against the decision of 16 March 2017 in part. It found that the regional branch of the “United Russia” party had earlier notified the town administration of its intention to hold public events from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 26 March 2017 at all three locations chosen by the applicant and at two other sites. In such circumstances, the town administration was to provide the applicant with well-reasoned proposals for changing the location or time of her intended meeting. No such proposals had been made, however. The town administration’s failure to propose an alternative location or time for the applicant’s event had therefore been unlawful. 16.  On the same day the Kazan department of internal affairs warned the applicant that if she held a public event at one of the locations indicated in her notifications of 14 and 17 March 2017, she would be held liable. 17.  On 26 March 2017 the applicant held a meeting at the specially designated location for public events in Krylya Sovetov Park. According to the applicant, about 1,500 people attended the meeting, which lasted for about one hour and twenty minutes. According to the Government, about 400 people participated in the event. 18.  According to the Government, during the meeting the police used loudspeakers to order the participants to disperse. According to the applicant, no announcements were made through loudspeakers. A police officer had approached her and demanded that she stop the unlawful public event. Referring to the Vakhitovskiy District Court’s decision of 24 March 2017, she had replied that the meeting was lawful. No further action was taken by the police until the end of the meeting. 19.  The applicant was arrested on her way home after the meeting at about 4.20 p.m., and taken to a nearby police station. The police immediately drew up a report stating that she had been escorted to the police station so that a report on an administrative offence could be drawn up. An arrest record, drawn up at the same time, stated that she had been arrested “in connection with an administrative offence [sic.] under Articles 20.2 § 2 [and] 19.3 § 1 [of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereafter “the CAO”)] for examination of the case”. 20.  At 6 p.m. the police drew up a report on an administrative offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. They noted that the applicant had organised an unauthorised public event. In particular, she had published a message on VKontakte calling for participation in the meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park on 26 March 2017. She had then held a meeting from 2 to 3 p.m. in which about 400 people had participated. She had notified the town administration of her intention to hold a meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park but the town administration had refused to allow the meeting. She had been allowed, however, to hold a “picket” at another location. By holding an unauthorised meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park, the applicant had breached the requirements of section 4 paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Public Assemblies Act and had therefore committed an offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. 21.  At the same time, at 6 p.m., the police also drew up a report on an administrative offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO. They repeated verbatim the report on the administrative offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and added that the applicant had been warned by the Kazan department of internal affairs that she would be held liable if she went ahead with a public event at a location which had not been approved by the town administration. The applicant had held the meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park at 2 p.m. on 26 March 2017, despite that warning. The police had ordered her to stop the meeting but she had not taken any actions to comply with that order; the meeting had lasted until about 3 p.m. The applicant had therefore disobeyed a lawful order of the police and had thereby committed an offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO. 22.  The applicant was released at 8.35 p.m. 23.  On 27 March 2017 the Aviastroitelnyy District Court of Kazan, in two separate judgments, found the applicant guilty of offences under Articles 19.3 and 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. It found that she had organised an unauthorised public event, including by publishing a message on VKontakte calling for participation, and had refused to obey a lawful order given by the police to stop that event. The court noted that the applicant had notified the town administration of her intention to hold a meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park but that the town administration had refused to allow the meeting; it had proposed that she hold a “picket” at another location. The applicant had been warned by the Kazan department of internal affairs that she would be held liable if she went ahead with the public event at locations which had not been approved by the town administration. She had, however, held the meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park. The police had ordered her to stop the meeting but she had not complied with that order. The court did not reply to the applicant’s argument that the town administration’s decision of 16 March 2017 refusing to approve the meeting had been annulled on judicial review and that the meeting had therefore to be considered as authorised and lawful, and the police’s order to stop it unlawful. The court sentenced the applicant to a fine of 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) under Article 19.3 of the CAO and to twenty hours of community work under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. 24.  The applicant appealed. She reiterated her argument that the meeting organised by her had been duly notified and therefore lawful, and that the police’s order to stop it had been unlawful. She referred to the decision of 24 March 2017 by the Vakhitovskiy District Court declaring unlawful the town administration’s decision of 16 March 2017 refusing to approve the meeting and submitted that under Article 227 § 8 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (“the CAP”), that decision was subject to immediate enforcement (see a summary of the domestic law provisions in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 293, 7 February 2017). She further referred to a Constitutional Court ruling of 14 February 2013 that a public event was considered to be approved not only after receipt by the organiser of the local authorities’ express approval, but also if the local authorities had not provided the organiser with a well‑reasoned proposal for a change of location or time of the event within the statutory time-limit. The applicant also argued that the public event had not created any risk to people’s lives or health or to the property of persons or legal entities. Nor had the participants committed any unlawful acts or breached the procedure for the conduct of public events established by the Public Events Act. There had therefore been no lawful grounds to stop the public event. 25.  On 17 May 2017 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld both judgments of 27 March 2017 on appeal, finding them lawful, well reasoned and justified. In reply to the applicant’s arguments that the meeting had been lawful and that the police’s order to stop it had been unlawful, the court held as follows:
“Counsel’s and [the applicant’s] arguments that she was innocent and had been unlawfully charged under [Articles 19.3 and 20.2 § 2 of the CAO] because there had been no corpus delicti [of the above offences] in her actions – as she had not breached applicable statutory requirements, her guilt had not been proven by the material in the case file and the police officer’s order to stop the public event had been unlawful – are unsubstantiated. They are based on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable legal provisions and an incorrect assessment of the facts of the present case. The arguments advanced by [the applicant] contradict the facts established during the examination of the case and are disproved by the evidence, which cumulatively shows that [the applicant] disobeyed a lawful order by a police officer who was fulfilling his duty to safeguard public order and ensure public safety.”
The court then extensively cited the applicable provisions of the domestic law (see a summary of the domestic law provisions in Lashmankin and Others, cited above, §§ 226-32) and continued:
“A comprehensive analysis of the applicable legal provisions and the facts of the present case leads [the court] to conclude that in the present case the organiser of the public event did not fully comply with the procedure for organising and holding public events, which rendered the public event unlawful. Furthermore, the judicial decision finding [the town administration’s] failure to act unlawful did not amount to an unconditional approval of the location and time of the public event and did not exempt the organiser from fulfilling the obligations imposed by [the Public Events Act]. The above [judicial decision] did not therefore transform an unauthorised public event into an authorised one ...
In the present case the police officer acted within the powers provided by law with the aim of fulfilling his duty to ensure public safety and order. His order to stop the public event, addressed to its organiser, can be considered lawful in accordance with [the Police Act].
The argument that the public event was to be considered as approved not only after receipt by the organiser of [the local authorities’] approval, but also if [the local authorities] have not provided the organiser with a well-reasoned proposal for a change of location or time of the event within the statutory time-limit is invalid. The aim of the public event indicated in the notification (against corruption and for Prime Minister Medvedev’s resignation) differed from the real aim of the public event and the aim declared during preliminary campaigning [for that event]. Thus, on 23 March 2017 [the applicant] published on her ... VKontacte personal page campaigning material about the forthcoming public event at 2 p.m. on 26 March 2017 in Krylya Sovetov Park ... which stated: ‘26 March is a nationwide protest day against corruption by Russian high-ranking officials. #whereisDimon#lookforDimon. Friends, we have the right to assemble peacefully, to discuss. It has therefore been decided to hold the meeting in Krylya Sovetov Park ...’.” 26.  Subsequently, on 12 July 2017, the Vakhitovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO. The court noted that the applicant had given oral submissions and had pleaded not guilty. It then found that on 23 March 2017 she had published a message on VKontakte calling for participation in a meeting to be held on 26 March 2017 in Krylya Sovetov Park, despite the fact that the town administration had refused to approve that meeting and had suggested that the applicant should hold a “picket” at another location. She had therefore campaigned for participation in the public event before it had been approved by the competent regional or municipal authorities. The court ordered the applicant to pay a fine of RUB 10,000. 27.  On 9 August 2017 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld the judgment of 12 July 2017 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. It held, in particular, that section 10 § 1 of the Public Events Act expressly prohibited organisers from campaigning for participation in a public event before it had been approved by the competent local authorities (see a summary of the domestic law provisions in Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 249). The applicant had breached that prohibition. The court then repeated verbatim the parts of its judgment of 17 May 2017 cited in paragraph 25 above. The applicant attended the hearing and made oral submissions. 28.  On 12 September 2017 the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the town administration’s unlawful failure to propose alternative locations for the meeting of 26 March 2017 as established by the judgment of 24 March 2017 (see paragraph 15 above). The court found that the applicant had not proved that she had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the town administration’s failure to act. 29.  On 14 December 2017 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld that judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. It added that on 21 March 2017 the town administration had proposed an alternative location for the public event planned by the applicant. The applicant had not substantiated her argument that that proposal concerned another public event.