Case: case_263

Atomic Facts:
[{"fact_id": "F001", "text": "The case concerns restrictions of the applicant's rights to take part in a public event, under Article 11 of the Convention.", "source_paragraph": 1, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F002", "text": "The applicant planned to hold a demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 1, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F003", "text": "On 27 March 2009, the applicant, together with two other picket organisers, resubmitted their notification specifying that, according to the National Centre for Radiology of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation, about 70% of Russians over forty years old have haemorrhoids, which is one of the most common human diseases.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F004", "text": "On 27 March 2009, the Deputy Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow again refused to authorise the picket.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F005", "text": "The Deputy Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow noted that the statistics provided by the applicant and the two other picket organisers were not in line with the relevant data from the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F006", "text": "The picket organisers were invited once again to remedy the shortcomings in their notification and to resubmit it.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F007", "text": "The picket organisers decided to cancel the event that they had planned.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F008", "text": "On 7 April 2009, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow regarding the refusals of the Deputy Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow of 19 March 2009 and 27 March 2009.", "source_paragraph": 3, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F009", "text": "The applicant argued that Russian law did not permit a blanket ban on the holding of peaceful assemblies as long as the purpose of the assembly in question was in conformity with constitutional values.", "source_paragraph": 3, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F010", "text": "On 11 June 2009, the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow rejected the applicant's complaint.", "source_paragraph": 4, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F011", "text": "The Taganskiy District Court of Moscow referred to the definition of a public event as specified by section 2(1) of the Public Events Act (no. FZ-54 of 19 June 2004).", "source_paragraph": 4, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F012", "text": "Under section 2(1) of the Public Events Act (no. FZ-54 of 19 June 2004), a public event was one which aimed to express or develop opinions freely and to voice demands on issues related to political, economic, social or cultural life in the country, or issues related to foreign policy.", "source_paragraph": 4, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F013", "text": "The Taganskiy District Court of Moscow held that since the picket at issue did not pursue any aims related to expressing or developing opinions freely or voicing demands on issues related to political, economic, social or cultural life in the country, or issues related to foreign policy, the refusals to authorise it had been lawful.", "source_paragraph": 4, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F014", "text": "On 8 October 2009, the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow of 11 June 2009 on appeal.", "source_paragraph": 4, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F015", "text": "Relying on Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the local authorities' decisions refusing to approve her picket had violated her right to freedom of peaceful assembly.", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F016", "text": "Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant contended that she had not had at her disposal any procedure which would have allowed her to obtain an enforceable decision prior to the date of the planned picket.", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}]

Fact Mapping:
{"list1": {"scope": ["F002", "F003", "F004", "F013"], "interference": ["F004", "F007", "F011", "F012", "F013"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F004", "F011", "F012", "F013"], "legitimate_aim": ["F004", "F005", "F013", "F014"], "necessity": ["F003", "F004", "F005", "F013", "F014"], "positive_obligation": []}, "list2": {"scope": ["F002", "F003", "F013"], "interference": ["F004", "F013"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F004", "F011", "F012", "F013"], "legitimate_aim": ["F004", "F005", "F013"], "necessity": ["F003", "F013"], "positive_obligation": []}, "list3": ["F003", "F004", "F013"]}

Conclusion:
{"violated": true, "elements": {"scope": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_assembly_exists": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_participation": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_peaceful": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "explicit"}, "interference": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "explicit"}, "prescribed_by_law": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implicit"}, "prescribed_by_law_foreseeable": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "prescribed_by_law_accessible": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "prescribed_by_law_safeguards": {"conclusion": "no", "discussed": "implied"}, "legitimate_aim": {"conclusion": "no", "discussed": "explicit", "aims": []}, "necessity": {"conclusion": "no", "discussed": "explicit"}, "positive_obligation": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}}}