Compilation of Venice Commission Opinion Concerning Freedom of Assembly

For optimal readability, we highly recommend downloading the document PDF, which you can do below.

Download File

Document Information:

Year: 2013
Country: Transnational
Language: English
Document Type: Publication
Topic:

This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int

Strasbourg, 15 July 20 13

CDL(20 12)014 rev 3

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW
(VENICE COMMISSION)

COMPILATION

OF VENICE COMMISSION OPINIONS

CONCERNING FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY 1

1 This document will be updated regularly. This version contains all opinion s and reports/studies adopted up to and including the Venice Commission’s 94th Plenary Session ( 8-9 March 201 3).

CDL(2012)014 – 2 –
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 3
2. DEFINITION OF ASSEMBLY – PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY ………………………….. ………….. 4
2.1. Spontaneous as semblies ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 6
2.2. Counter -demonstrations ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 8
2.3. Simultaneous assemblies ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 9
3. REGULATION OF ASSEMBLIES ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 10
3.1. Reference to international and European standards ………………………….. …………… 10
3.2. Constitutional level ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .11
3.3. Legislative level ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 12
4.1. Presumption in favour of holding assemblies ………………………….. ……………………. 13
4.2. State’s duty to protect peaceful assemblies ………………………….. ………………………. 14
4.3. Proportionality ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 15
4.4. Non -discrimination ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. .15
4. RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF ASSEMLBY ………………………….. …………………… 17
5.1. Legitimate grounds for restrictions – Content -based restrictions ……………………….. 18
5.2. Restrictions on Place, Time and Manner of holding Assemblies ……………………….. 19
6. NOTIFICATION OF ASSEMBLIES ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 26
6.1 Length of the notification period ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 28
6.2 Notification requirements ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 30
6.3 Regulatory authority and decision -maki ng ………………………….. ………………………… 31
7. REVIEW AND APPEAL ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 33
8. ASSEMBLY TERMINATION AND DISPERSAL ………………………….. ………………………. 35
9. USE OF FORCE ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 36
10. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ORGANISER ………………………….. ……………………….. 37
11. FINANCING PEACEFUL ASSEMBLIES ………………………….. ………………………….. …41
12. LIABILITY OF PARTICIPANTS ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 41
13. POLICING ASSEMBLIES ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. 43
13.1 Responsibilities of the law enforcement bodies ………………………….. ……………………. 44
14. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 46

CDL(2012)014

– 3 –

1. INTRODUCTION

The present document is a compilation of extracts taken from opinions and reports/studies
adopted by the Venice Commission on issues concerning the Freedom of Assembly. The aim of
this compilation is to give an overview of the doctrine of the Venice Commission in this field.

This compilation is intended to serve as a source of reference for drafters of constitutions and of
legislation relating to freedom of peaceful assembly, researchers as well as the Venice
Commission’s members , who are requested to prepare comments and opinions on such texts.
However, it should not prevent members from int roducing new points of view or diverge from
earlier ones, if there is good reason for doing so. It merely provides a frame of reference.

This compilation is structured in a thematic manner in order to facilitate access to the topics
dealt with by the Veni ce Commission over the years.

The compilation is not a static document and will continue to be regularly updated with extracts
of newly adopted opinions or reports/studies by the Venice Commission.

Each opinion referred to in the present document rel ate to a specific country and any
recommendation made has to be seen in the specific constitutional context of that country. This
is not to say that such recommendation cannot be of relevance for other systems as well.

The Venice Commission’s reports and studies quoted in this Compilation seek to present
general standards for all member and observer states of the Venice Commission.
Recommendations made in the reports and studies will therefore be of a more general
application, although the specificity of national/local situations is an important factor and should
be taken into account adequately.

Both the brief extracts from opinions and reports/studies presented here must be seen in the
context of the wider text adopted by the Venice Commission from whi ch it was taken. Each
citation therefore has a reference that sets out its exact position in the opinion or report/study
(paragraph number, page number for older opinions), which allows the reader to find it in the
opinion or report/study from which it wa s taken.

Venice Commission opinions may change or develop over time as new opinions are given and
new experiences acquired. Therefore, to have a full understanding of the Venice Commission’s
position, it would be important to read the entire Compilation under a particular theme.

Please kindly inform the Venice Commission’s Secretariat if you think that a citation is missing,
superfluous or filed under an incorrect heading ( Venice@coe.int ).

CDL(2012)014 – 4 –
2. DEFINITION OF ASSEMBL Y – PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY

“Freedom of assembly – as elaborated in human rights case law – is viewed as a fundamental
democratic right, which should not be interpreted restrictively and which covers all types of
peaceful expressive gathering, whether public or private”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 22
See also :
CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the right of citizens to
assemble peaceably, without Weapons, to freely hold rallies and demonstrations of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commissio n and OSCE/ODIHR , § 8;
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria ,
§6;
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §7;
CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan, §8; CDL –
AD(2004)039 Opinion on the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and
Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia, §8;
CDL -AD(2006)033 Joint Opini on on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies in Ukraine by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §0

“To be consistent with international standards, the law would need to provide for a general
definition of an assembly, supplementing it by definitions of in dividual types of public events only
insofar as these require differential regulatory treatment (such as may be the case with static
events, such as a rally or a picket, and dynamic ones, such as a procession)”.

CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendm ents to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §17
See also :
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§12;
CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine , by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §15 -17 ;
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Ev ents of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR ,III,1,Q

“Article 11 of the ECHR protects freedom of assembly, however, only freedom of peaceful
assembly is guaranteed. Although the state is given a wide margin of appreciation in order to
deal wit h disorder or crime or to protect the rights and freedoms of others, this freedom is
fundamental and presents such an essential element of a democracy that it cannot be restricted
unless the persons exercising it have committed a reprehensible act. It is a positive obligation of
the state to guarantee the effective exercise of the freedom of assembly.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §28

“A definition of the term “public assem bly” should thus usefully focus on traditional criteria such
as a certain number of individuals with a local connection and a common expressive purpose.”

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzeg ovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §30

“The scope of the ac should cover public assemblies which take place on public space that
being, space that is generally freely accessible to the public”.

CDL(2012)014

– 5 –
CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Pu blic Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §13, Q

“The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR wish to recall that the right to peaceful assembly
should not be interpreted restrictively and any restrictions should be construed narrowly, and
that in general, rights must be “practical and effective” not “theoretical or illusory”.

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §10

“The scope of protection afforded by the Belarusian Constitution in the above provision is
relatively narrow. The right to freedom of assembly in the Constitution is not formulated in such
manner as to guarantee first and foremost this right as an essential cornerst one of a democratic
society, but rather as recognizing assemblies and other forms of public gatherings within strict
legal limits. Such a restrictive formulation of a fundamental right amounts to a limitation if
measured by international standards.”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §48 ; see also §54

“The right of assembly covers all types of gathering including assemblies and meetings,
demonstrations, marches and processions whether public or private provided they are
“peaceful”. Furthermore, “an assembly” can be a less formal grouping and for a less defined
purpose than is contained in these basic definitions and “it is also an essential part of the
activities of political pa rties in the conduct of elections”.

CDL -AD(2006)03 4 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan, §18
See also
CDL -AD(2004)039 Opinion on the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and
Demonstrations of t he Republic of Armenia, §9

“T he most important type of public assemblies are those called peaceful assemblies and public
protests.”

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §26

“ (…) It is recommended that events organized by public authorities (government agencies or
self -government bodies) be removed from the scope of the Draft Law. It should be noted in this
respect that executive or local self -government bodies as entities cannot be participants of
public assemblies covered by this law”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §23

“The (…) Law shall not apply to cultural and spo rt events, weddings, family and friendly
celebrations, funeral rites, religious ceremonies (…). These exceptions are consistent with the
idea of assemblies under Article 11 ECHR that does not include assemblies for social
purposes.”

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinio n on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§14

CDL(2012)014 – 6 –

“It is also important, that a common understanding of what constitutes a “non -public” assembly
is established between the authorities and the public so that the events not subjec t to regulation
are precisely defined, and that the potential for conflicting Interpretations is reduced. This
provision should not be viewed as exclusion of celebrations, rites or cultural events: the Draft
Law should cover them in those cases when the se activities are held for expressive purposes.
For instance, this Draft Law should be applicable to a religious mass held in a public park to
celebrate Christmas, where participation was open to all even though it is a rite”.

CDL -AD(2010)049 , Interim Joi nt Opinion on the Draft Law on assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 22

“Commercial and other activities which are not covered by freedom of expression should not be
included in the Act but rather be subject of g reater regulation than public assemblies”

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OS CE/ODIHR , §15

“A specific law should not be necessary to regulate assemblies in an election period. On the
contrary, the general law on assemblies should cover assemblies associated with election
campaigns, an integral part of which is the organization of public events. Indeed, the exercise of
the freedom to peacefully assemble typically increases in the context of elections when
opposing political parties, as well as other groups and organizations, wish to publicize their
views”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §20
See also :
CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §41;
CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §20

According to the OSCE/ODIHR -Venice Commission Guidelines, not only citizens, but also
foreign nationals and stateless persons may be participants in, and organizers of an assembly 2.
International human rights law requires that non -nationals have the right to peaceful assembly 3.
Thus, the reference to “the limits of their rights and freedoms provided for in the legislation of the
Republ ic of Belarus” must be clarified and aligned with international and European standards on
the matter.

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §57;

2.1. Spontaneous assemblies

“(…) th e Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR wish to stress that the ability to respond
peacefully and immediately (spontaneously) to some occurrence, incident, other assembly, or
speech is an essential element of freedom of assembly. Spontaneous events should be
regarded as an expectable feature of a healthy democracy. As such the authorities should
protect and facilitate any spontaneous assembly so long as it is peaceful in nature.”

2 OSCE/ODIHR -Venice Commission Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2 nd edition, par 2.5.
3 Id, par. 55.

CDL(2012)014

– 7 –
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §36

“Spontaneous assemblies by definition are not notified in advance since they generally arise in
response to some occurrence which could not have been reasonably anticipated”.

CDL -AD( 2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §36
See also :
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §23;
CDL -AD(2006)033 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies in Ukraine by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §32
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Bel arus, §72;

“In relation in particular to the possibility of announcing a spontaneous assembly, the Venice
Commission and ODIHR recall that, in order for an assembly to be genuinely a “spontaneous”
one, there must be a close temporal relationship between the event (“phenomenon or
happening”) which stimulates the assembly and the assembly itself. ”

CDL -AD(2008)020 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law Amending and Supplementing the Law on
Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §17

“Such assemblies are required to be permitted and are to be regarded as an expectable, rather
than an exceptional, feature of a healthy democracy. (See Guidelines Section B , § 128.)
Whether an assem bly is “spontaneous” or “urgent” will depend on its own facts. In principle, so
long as an assembly is peaceful in nature it should be permitted”.

CDL -AD(2010)049 , Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on assemblies of the Republic
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §62

“The definition would benefit from stating the essence of a spontaneous assembly as being one
which cannot be notified and which would not achieve its aim if it were to adhere to notification
requirements”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §26

“It should be made clear that spontaneous assemblies do not require an organiser.”

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §38

“The inclusion of definitions for, and the explicit protection of, simultaneous, counter – and
spontaneous assemblies, has already been welcomed. The protect ion of these types of
assembly is essential for the functioning of modern democracies. If there is, however, an
evidenced risk of imminent unlawful conduct, the courts and/or law enforcement officials
must be entitled to find ways to minimize such risk.”

CDL -AD(2011)031 Joint opinion on the draft law on freedom of peaceful assembly of Ukraine by
the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR , §71

CDL(2012)014 – 8 –
“The Venice Commission agrees, in general , that provision for a timeframe for the notification of
public events may be helpful as it enables the authorities to take reasonable and appropriate
measures in order to guarantee their smooth conduct. It recalls however that there may be
cases in which a public event is organised as an urgent or spontaneous response to an
unpredicted event, in which case it may not be possible to respect the ordinary timeframe for
notification. Spontaneous and urgent assemblies are protected by Article 11 ECHR”.

CDL -AD( 2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §37

2.2. Counter -demonstrations

“(…) Counter -demonstrations (…) is when persons exercise their right to assemble to express
their disa greement with the views expressed in another assembly”.

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §22

“The necessity for counter -demonstrators to find an a lternative location should however only be
limited to “exceptional cases”, when the risk of violence is “serious” and the police authorities
can not handle the situation.”

CDL -AD(2007)042 Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Freedom of Assembly o f
Azerbaijan,§22

“The right to counter -demonstrate should only be limited in connection with genuine security or
public order consideration.”

CDL -AD(2005)007 Opinion on the Draft Law making Amendments and Addenda to the Law on
Conducting Meetings, Assem blies, Rallies and Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia, §20

“/…/ Thus, persons have a right to assemble as counterdemonstrators to express their
disagreement with the views expressed by another public assembly. Indeed, in such a case,
there is a po ssibility of disruption of an assembly by a counter -demonstration, and it is the
state’s positive obligation to prevent disruption of the event, against which counter –
demonstrations are organized. Where possible, the authorities should take measures to ens ure
all assemblies can take place, rather than use the notification of simultaneous events as a
justification of imposing automatic restrictions and prohibitions. Furthermore, the state has a
positive obligation to provide adequate policing to facilitate counter -demonstrations within sight
and sound of one another”.

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 53

“(…), it should be noted that the installation of temporary fences, currently prohibited by
Article 22 para 4, is a widely used police tactic to help manage and control crowds, and
indeed, such tools can actually assist in the facilitation and protection of the right to freedom
of assembly (for example , when used to separate potentially violent counter -demonstrators
from a controversial assembly, whilst still enabling the two demonstrations to take place in
close proximity). This provision may thus be reconsidered. ”

CDL -AD(2011)031 Joint opinion on the draft law on freedom of peaceful assembly of Ukraine by
the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR , §71

CDL(2012)014

– 9 –

2.3. Simultaneous assemblies

“The Guidelines explicitly provide that where notif ication is given for two or more assemblies at
the same place and time, they should all be permitted and facilitated as much as possible,
notwithstanding who submitted the notification first and how close to each other they plan to
gather. This owes also t o the fact that all persons and groups have an equal right to be present
in public places to express their views”.

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §53

“Concerning simultaneous assemblies, it is the “first come, first served” rule that is used in the
Draft Law. This is consistent with international human rights standards and the OSCE/ODIHR –
Venice Commission Guidelines, provided however that there is a lack of sufficient policing
resources to manage both meetings, given that, as the OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission
Guidelines point out, “ related simultaneous assemblies should be facilitated so that they occur
within sight and sound of their target insof ar as this does not physically interfere with the other
assembly ”. A prohibition on conducting public events in the place and time of another public
event would be a disproportionate response, unless there is a clear and objective indication that
both even ts cannot be managed in an appropriate manner through the exercise of policing
powers. This condition should therefore be added.

The authority shall propose that, in case of a conflict, the organizers who submitted their
notification at a later date are required to choose another venue or time for their event (Article
15 paragraph 3)./…/

In case of disagreement between the competent authority and the organizers on the change, it
is important to provide the organizers the possibility to challenge this d ecision or to clarify the
issue before the appropriate authorities, including in court.”

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria ,
§§36 -38

“The inclusion of definitions for, and the explicit protection of, simultaneous, counter – and
spontaneous assemblies, has already been welcomed. The protection of these types of
assembly is essential for the functioning of modern democracies. If there is, however, an
evidenced risk of imminent unlawful conduct, the c ourts and/or law enforcement officials
must be entitled to find ways to minimize such risk. ”

CDL -AD(2011)031 Joint opinion on the draft law on freedom of peaceful assembly of Ukrain e by
the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR , §71

“The Commission underlines in this respect that where notification is given for more than one
assembly at the same place and time, they should be facilitated as far as possible. It is a
disproportionate response not to allow more than one assembly at a time as a blanket rule. It is
only where it would be impossible to manage both events together using adequate policing and
stewarding that it would be permissible to restrict or even move one of them. A po licy described
as “separate and divide” where the same place is sought by several organisers is not
permissible. Similar considerations apply for counter demonstrations.”

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §39

CDL(2012)014 – 10 –
3. REGULATION OF ASSEMBLIES

“The freedom of assembly constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society
and one of the basic conditions for its progress and each individual’s self -fulfilme nt”.

CDL -AD(2010)033 , Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §10

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings,
demonstrations, marches and pickets of the Russian Federatio n, §5

3.1. Reference to international and European standards

“The reference to “international treaties” is also welcomed. Concrete references to the
international and European instruments on the matter (ICCPR, European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Framework Convention on the Protection of
National Minorities) would be useful. Alternatively, they could be mentioned in a Preamble of the
Law. Including a specific reference to article 11 of the ECHR would be particularly beneficial,
either in Article 1 or in Article 5 (in the latter, a reference to §2 of article 11 ECHR would be
welcomed). Such modification would help ensure that the exerci se of the freedom of assembly
is brought in conformity with the relevant international standards and the Constitution as
interpreted in the light of article 11(2) ECHR.”

CDL -AD(2010)049, Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §15
See also
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §52

“ (…) t is positive that the Draft Law clearly states the supremacy of universally recognized
principles and international law, the Draft Law should also state that any restrictions to this
fundamental freedom may only be imposed in accordance with the law and in pursuit of
legitimate aims, and may not exceed the limits defin ed by international agreements”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §14

As the European Court of Human Rights has reiterated in the Barankevich v. Russia judgment, 4
“the right of peaceful assembly enshrined in Article 11 is a fundamental right in a democratic
society and, like the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, one of the foundations
of such a society (…). As has been stated many tim es in the Court’s judgments, not only is
democracy a fundamental feature of the European public order but the Convention was
designed to promote and maintain the ideals and values of a democratic society. Democracy,
the Court has stressed, is the only poli tical model contemplated in the Convention and the only
one compatible with it. By virtue of the wording of the second paragraph of Article 11 (…), the
only necessity capable of justifying an interference with any of the rights enshrined in those
Articles is one that may claim to spring from a “democratic society” (…). The right to freedom of
assembly covers both private meetings and meetings in public thoroughfares as well as static
meetings and public processions; in addition, it can be exercised by ind ividuals participants of
the assembly and by those organising it (…). States must refrain from applying arbitrary
measures capable of interfering with the right to assemble peacefully. (…) ”.

4 ECtHR, Barankevich v. Russia judgment of 26 July 2007, paras. 24 and 25.

CDL(2012)014

– 11 –
CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetin gs, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §7

3.2. Constitutional level

“The exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms is a constitutional matter par excellence and,
as such, should be governed in principle primarily by the Constitu tion.”

CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably , Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR ,§8
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria ,
§6;
CDL -AD(2004)039 Opinion on the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and
Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia, §14 ;
CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan, §8

“Further, freedom of assembly, if regulated, shall be governed only by constitutional provisions
and laws enacted by Parliament, which should be clear and accessible so that those involved
are fully aware of t heir rights and duties. Article 1 of this Law refers to “other” laws applicable
without specifying them. However, it would be essential for this provision to be more explicit in
order to safeguard the requirement of foreseeability of laws and elimination o f any room for
potential abuse and violation of freedom to assembly through other legislative acts.”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §49

“Fundamental rights should, insofar as possible, be allowed to be exercised without regulation,
except where their exercise would pose a threat to public order and where necessity would
demand state intervention. A legislative basis for any interference with fundamental rights such
as the r ight of peaceful assembly is required by the Convention. The relevant regulation, in
other words, should focus on what is forbidden rather than on what is allowed: it should be clear
that all that is not forbidden is permissible, and not vice -versa.”

CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §8
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§6;
CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan , § 8;
CDL -AD(2004)039 Opinion on the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and
Demonstration s of the Republic of Armenia, §14

“ Accordingly, [in the Commission’s opinion ], it is not indispensable for a State to enact a
specific law on public events and assemblies, as control of such evens may be left to general
policing and the rights in relati on to them may be subject to the general administrative law”.

CDL(2012)014 – 12 –
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetin gs, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§6;
CDL -AD(2004)039 , Opinion on the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and
Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia , §1 6

3.3. Legislative level

“Laws specifically devoted to the right of freedom of a ssembly, if they are enacted, should be
limited to setting out the legislative bases for permissible interferences by State authorities and
regulating the system of permits without unnecessary details.”

CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to t he Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 8
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§6;
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §7

“Since the Draft Law is supposed to be a general law governing freedom of assembly, the
possibility of assemblies being governed by other unspecified laws might create the potential for
abuse. Besides this, the provision might appear to undermine the requirement of foresee ability
of the law”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §18

“The prohibition on the adoption of sub -statutory normative legal acts to limit the right to
peaceful assembly is also positive in that this means that laws on assembly must be passed by
parliament. Any further guidelines or implementing regulations should be fully in line with the law
on freedom of assembly and the guarantees contai ned therein.”

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 20

“Any restrictions imposed must have a formal basis in the primary legislation at the national
level. This legislation should also state the mandate and powers of the restricting authority. The
Act itself must be sufficiently precise to enable an individual to assess their anticipated conduct
in view of its compliance [or non -compliance] with the Act in q uestion and realise possible
consequences of their conduct.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §29

3.3.a Title of the Law

“ At the outset, the Venice Commission wishes to emp hasise, as it has done on previous
occasions, that this law should guarantee freedom of assembly and not merely regulate the
conduct of public events. Therefore, after due amendment of the law as indicated in the present
opinion, its title should include t he words “freedom of assembly”.

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §9

CDL(2012)014

– 13 –
“T he title of the Law, currently “Public Assembly Act”, should be reformulated as “Law o n the
freedom of assembly” or “Law on freedom of peaceful assembly”. An assembly must be
‘peaceful’ if it is to be afforded the protection guaranteed in international instruments.”

CDL -AD (2010)031 , OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission joint Opinion on the Publ ic Assembly
Act of the Republic of Serbia, §15

“The OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission, would like to note, that since that time, in their
assessment of legislation on freedom of assembly, they have recommended, in relation to laws
relating to assembl y that they have examined, that the title be “law on freedom of assembly”. By
removing the term ”peaceful”, legislation acknowledges and covers not only peaceful
assemblies, but also addresses the cases where assemblies are not peaceful, or degenerate
into non -peaceful assemblies. Ideally therefore, the title of the law should be amended to “Law
on Freedom of Assembly”.

CDL -AD (2010)050 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion of Draft Law on Peaceful
Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic, §19

“It is we lcomed that the title of the Draft Law now correctly stands as “Law on the freedom of
assembly”.

CDL -AD (2010)049 , OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on
Assemblies of the Republic of Armenia, §13

“The title of the Law should be modified to read “Law on Freedom of Assembly ” or “Law on
Peaceful Assemblies ”. Indeed, even if the denomination of this right is “freedom of assembly”
(as in Article 11 of ECHR), only freedom of peaceful assembly (as stressed in Article 21 of the
ICCPR and in accordance with the OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Guidelines 5) is
guaranteed and protected.”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §45

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

“National legisl ation governing freedom of assembly should thus clearly articulate three main
principles:

– the presumption in favour of holding assemblies,
– the state’s duty to protect peaceful assembly and
– proportionality”.

CDL -AD(2010)016 , Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia and
Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §11

4.1. Presumption in favour of holding assemblies

“The Venice Commission underlines that the presumption in favour of holding assemblies is a
very important notion; it is expressed in the First Guiding Principles of the OSCE/ODIHRVenice
Commission Guidelines. A corollary of this principle is that “a broad spectrum of possible
5 OSCE/ ODIHR -Venice Commission Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edition, par 1.3

CDL(2012)014 – 14 –
restrictions that do not interfere with the message communicated are avail able to the regulatory
authority. As a general rule, assemblies should be facilitated within sight and sound of their
targeted audiences”. This means that the Georgian regulatory authorities should not have only
two options, either to accept or to refuse t he holding of an assembly: when there are public
order problems, they should be able to accommodate them and suggest appropriate
alternatives (guided by the principle now stated in subparagraph h of Article 3) which would
allow the demonstration to take pl ace”.

CDL -AD(2010)009 , Interim Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Assembly and
Manifestations of Georgia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §23

“The right to proceed in the absence of a well -founded objection by the authorities is a co rollary
of the presumption in favour of holding assemblies and is indeed central to the enjoyment of
freedom of assembly”.

“It is indeed important that assemblies can be held with a presumption of legality so as to avoid
any chilling effect on organisers and participants”.

CDL -AD(2007)042 Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Freedom of Assembly of
Azerbaijan, §15

“In the opinion of the Commission, however, the Assembly Law confers too broad discretion and
fails to indicate in clear terms that interferences by the executive authorities with the organisers’
right to determine the format of the public even must always comply with the fundamental
principles of “presumption in favour of holding assemblies”, “proportionality” and “non –
discrimination”. Under the current l aw, for example, the executive authorities are empowered to
transform a moving event into a static event in order to prevent mere traffic perturbations, which
is not in conformity with Article 11 ECHR. As the Assembly Law itself confers on the executive
au thorities too broad a discretion and fails to set out the essential principles within which such
discretion must be exercised, there is a high risk that judicial review may not lead to a reversal
of decisions even if they are based on grounds not justified by Article 11.2 ECHR.” §25

4.2. State’s duty to protect peaceful assemblies

“It is the primary responsibility of the State to put in place adequate mechanisms and
procedures to ensure that the freedom is practically enjoyed and not subject to undue
bureaucr atic regulation.”

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §1 6

“The state has a positive obligation to actively protect peaceful and lawful assemblies. It ma y be
required to intervene to secure conditions permitting the exercise of the freedom of assembly
and this may require positive measures to be taken to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed
peacefully. This involves arriving at a fair balance between th e interests of those seeking to
exercise the right of assembly and the general interests of the rest of the community.”

CDL -AD(2006)033 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies in Ukraine by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §10

CDL(2012)014

– 15 –

4.3. Proport ionality

“Proportionality is one of the key criteria that should guide the State when imposing restrictions,
and which is sometimes not taken properly into account. Proportionality requires the State to
adopt the least intrusive means for achieving set o bjectives. The legitimate interest of the State
is to guarantee general interests of the community and public order on the one hand, and to
ensure the proper exercise of freedom of assembly on the other. To this effect, some positive
measures are permissib le in order to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §29
See also :
CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan, §33

“The state may be required to intervene to secure conditions permitting the exercise of the
freedom of assembly and this may require positive measures to be taken to enable lawful
demonstrations to proceed peacefully. This in volves arriving at a fair balance between the
interests of those seeking to exercise the right of assembly and the general interests of the rest
of the community i.e. by applying the principle of proportionality.”

CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amen dments to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §8
See also :
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§6;
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §7;
CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan, §8

“It is recommended that a provision be included stressing the importance of the effective
application of the principle of proportionality in the implementation of the law. This would ensure
that any restrictions imposed on freedom of a ssembly would need to pass the proportionality
test, that is, be considered as the least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate purpose, in
order to remain permissible”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyr gyz
Republic, by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR §15

“Regarding the limitation of peaceful assemblies in the interests of national security […] it is
recommended to insert the term “proportionate” or “reasonable”. […] This serves to underscore
that the principle of proportionality continues to apply when questions of national security are
raised […].”

CDL -AD(2011)031 Joint opinion on the draft law on freedom of peaceful assemb ly of Ukraine by
the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR , §38

4.4. Non -discrimination

“Freedom of peaceful assembly is to be enjoyed equally by everyone.”

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§18.

CDL(2012)014 – 16 –
“Discrimination between nationals and non -nationals should be abandoned”.

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §5

“It is important to note th at the freedom to organize and participate in public assemblies must be
guaranteed to nationals and non -nationals as well as stateless persons, refugees, foreign
nationals, asylum seekers, people with disabilities and migrants. Illegal migrants must also h ave
the right to exercise their freedom of peaceful assembly. It would therefore be recommended to
amend this provision by using the language of the ICCPR and referring to “everyone” in this
regard”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Asse mbly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §24
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §5;
CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draf t Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §30;
CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §26

“The law does not disting uish between persons that are subject to administrative detention,
persons in custody, or persons in prison by a judgment of court. It is recognized that a
conviction might be combined with the deprivation of several civil rights in some legal systems,
but such a deprivation of rights has to be proportionate. It cannot be qualified as proportionate at
all to exclude prisoners, persons in detention or in custody from organising any event
irrespective of the negative impact of a criminal offence. These person s do also have legitimate
claims and interests and should also have the possibility to express their views. For sure,
peaceful events organized by arrested persons might sometimes offer higher risks concerning
the public order, than peaceful events organiz ed by persons who are not arrested. However, the
imprisonment itself cannot be seen as a reason to ban these persons from organising peaceful
events in general. A peaceful event can be organized by several persons. It cannot be
considered problematic if on e of these organisers is arrested and cannot make use of his rights
and duties to the full extent, because the other organisers might replace him in this regard.
Therefore, it is recommended to withdraw this provision and instead of deciding upon a
restric tion of assemblies organized by prisoners on a case by case basis.

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §30
See also :
CDL -AD(2010)033 , Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § §22

“It is recommended to add a statement concerning the ability of children and other persons
without full legal capacity to hold peaceful assemblies under this Draft L aw.”

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Ma nifestations of Bulgaria,
§18
See also :
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 29

“The Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR wish to recall that children also have legitimate
claims and interests that may sometimes differ from those of their parents or caregivers. Since
children at the age of fourteen are likely to already have a ce rtain extent of legal capacity and

CDL(2012)014

– 17 –
intellectual maturity, obtaining a written consent of parents or caregivers should not be
mandatory in all cases to enable them to act as organizers. In this light, it is recommended to
delete the phrase that requires ass emblies organised by juveniles under 14 years to be ‘with a
view of protecting his/her rights’. This potentially imposes content -based restrictions on the right
to peacefully assemble, and young people should be able to organise assemblies for all manner
of lawful purposes”.

CDL -AD(2010)033 , Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR ,§28

“Legally incapable people should never be denied this right altogether, since in many cases the
issue that they w ould wish to raise is not likely to be raised by any other group and they should
be appropriately facilitated”.

CDL -AD(2009)052 , Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 29

“/…/ executive or local self -government bodies as entities cannot be participants of public
assemblies covered by this law. This is distinct from individual civil servants working in the
executive or in local self -government bodies, who should benefit from the right to freedom of
assembly in their personal capacity”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §23

“Article 10.3 prohibits individuals working for internal affairs agencies to participate in peaceful
assemblies. This provision is prima facie too broad and lends itself to the interpretation that for
instance, police officers are barred from participation in an assembly even when they are off –
duty. /…/ . If the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent improper and/or undercover surveillance
of the assembly by law -enforcement officials, this should be expressly stated. Otherwise there is
no reason to exclude such individuals from taking part in public ass emblies in their personal
capacities when such participation is not connected with the fulfilment of their professional
duties.”

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE /ODIHR , §48

4. RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF ASSEMLBY

“Article 11 of the ECHR protects freedom of assembly, however, only freedom of peaceful
assembly is guaranteed. Although the state is given a wide margin of appreciation in order to
deal with disorder or crime or to protect the rights and freedoms of others, this freedom is
fundamental and presents such an essential element of a democracy that it cannot be restricted
unless the persons exercising it have committed a reprehensible act. It is a positive obli gation of
the state to guarantee the effective exercise of the freedom of assembly”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 , Joint Opinion on the Public Assembly Act of the Republic of Serbia by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §28
See also :
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§6;
CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republi c by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §8;

CDL(2012)014 – 18 –
CDL -AD(2008)018 Joint Opinion on the Amendments of 17 March 2008 to the Law on
Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 17;
CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan, §8;
CDL -AD(2004)039 Opinion on the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and
Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia, §10

“The state may be required to intervene t o secure conditions permitting the exercise of the
freedom of assembly and this may require positive measures to be taken to enable lawful
demonstrations to proceed peacefully. This necessarily means that laws regulating assemblies
must not in any circumst ances create unjustifiable restrictions in relation to holding peaceful
assemblies. Rather, the state must act in a manner calculated to allow the exercise of the
freedom”.

CDL -AD(2004)039 , Opinion on the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies an d
Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia, §12

“Any restrictions imposed must have a formal basis in the primary legislation at the national
level. This legislation should also state the mandate and powers of the restricting authority. The
Act itself m ust be sufficiently precise to enable an individual to assess their anticipated conduct
in view of its compliance [or non -compliance] with the Act in question and realise possible
consequences of their conduct. The incorporation of clear definitions in dom estic legislation is
vital to ensuring that the Act remains easy to understand and apply”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 , Joint Opinion on the Public Assembly Act of the Republic of Serbia by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §29

“The Venice Commission recalls th at the legitimate aims as provided for in the international and
European instruments, the State Constitution and the relevant legislation, are not a licence to
impose restrictions, and the onus rests squarely on the authorities to substantiate any
justific ations for the imposing of restrictions. Reasons to justify restrictions should be relevant
and sufficient as well as convincing and compelling and always based on assessment of the
relevant facts

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §26

5.1. Legitimate grounds for restrictions – Content -based restrictions

“(…) Restrictions on public assemblies should not be based upon the content of the message
they seek to c ommunicate. It is especially unacceptable if the interference with the right to
freedom of assembly could be justified simply on the basis of the authorities´ own view of the
merits of a particular protest. Any restrictions on the message of any content ex pressed should
face heightened scrutiny and must only be imposed if there is an imminent threat of violence.
Therefore, speeches and demonstrations which call for territorial changes or constitutional
changes do not automatically amount to a threat to the country’s territorial integrity and national
security, unless the element of incitement to hatred or violence is included.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 45

“/…/ it is imp ortant to mention that events aimed to make public calls to war, to incite hatred
towards racial, ethnic, religious or other groups, or for other manifestly bellicose purposes would
be deemed unlawful and their prohibition would be justified in the light o f the requirement to

CDL(2012)014

– 19 –
balance the freedom of assembly against other human rights, including the prohibition on
discrimination.

There is, however, a fine line between the degree of restriction necessary to safeguard other
human rights, and an encroachment on the freedom of assembly and expression. The test is
the presence of the element of violence. /…/ In order for the Draft Law to be consistent with the
Guidelines, the text should include the reference to the “element of violence” requirement”.

CDL -AD(20 10)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia, by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR §§29 -30
See also :
CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Com mission and OSCE/ODIHR , §43
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events in
the Republic of Belarus, §102;

“It is positive that only courts are empowered to impose restrictions on assemblies and only on
specific gr ounds listed in the law; the latter however must be interpreted in accordance with the
case -law of the E CtHR. In particular, any such restriction must be based on factual, concrete
and objective grounds”.

CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peacef ul Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 43

“Finally, Article 7 para 6 suggests that the mere existence of a threat to protected interests is
a sufficient ground to prohibit a peaceful assembly. However, prohibition should be a
measure of last resort (as recognised in Article 22 para 5 of the Draft Law), and a wide range
of other less intrusive restrictions should first be considered. Moreover, the goal of limitations
should not necessarily be to eliminate (‘liquidate’) the threa t to protected interests, but rather
to reduce them and thereby achieve a proportionate balance effected through parallel
scrutiny of the different rights engaged (similarly, in Article 9 para 2). Article 7 para 6 could
thus be reformulated to state that t he court may prohibit a peaceful assembly only when a
less restrictive response would not achieve the purpose pursued by the authorities in
safeguarding other relevant interests.”

CDL -AD(2011)031 Joint opinion on the draft law on freedom of peaceful assembly of Ukraine
by the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR , §42

5.2. Restrictions on Place, Time and Manner of holding Assemblies

“Location is therefore one of the key aspects of free dom of assembly. The privilege of the
organiser to decide which location fits best for the purpose of the assembly is part of the very
essence of freedom of assembly. Assemblies in public spaces should not have to give way to
more routine uses of the space , as it has long been recognised that use of public space for an
assembly is just as much a legitimate use as any other. Moreover, the purpose of an assembly
is often closely linked to a certain location and the freedom of assembly includes the right of th e
assembly to take place within “sight and sound” of its target object”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §32
See also:
CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Asse mblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §35

CDL(2012)014 – 20 –
“In relation to the place of an assembly, the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR also
welcome the explicit reference to “ buildings ” as it recognizes that public spaces are not
necessarily “ open air”. It is assumed that such buildings also include publicly owned auditoriums
and stadiums often used for assembly purposes.

The possibility for an organiser to use a privately -owned or privately -rented space which is
potentially accessible to eve ryone (a private park, for example) for an assembly is also
welcomed ”.

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §19 -20
See also :
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §34

“Article 4.I provides inter alia that peaceful assemblies “in places which are in private ownership”
shall not be regulated by the Law. Bearing in mind that the ECHR applies to all types of
assembly and the OSCE/ODHIR Guidelines do not exclude that private property can be used
as a venue for a public assembly ,] it is positive that assemblies on private property are
exempted from any notification requirement as well as from all other requirements provided for
in the Law. This provision shall therefore not be interpreted as prohibiting such kind of
spontaneous assemblies on private property. If the assembly is peaceful it should be allo wed”.

CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan , §21

“The definition of the location appears to overlap with the definition of a public assembly via the
criterion “ persons whose number and identity are not determined in ad vance ”. The location of
an assembly does not necessarily go hand in hand with its private or public character. Public
assemblies can be held in private properties, too”

CDL -AD(2010)016 , Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (B osnia
and Herzegovina ) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §34

“Regarding the limitation of the notion of “assembly” to gatherings of persons “in a public place”,
the Venice Commission refers to its earlier comments on the need to interpret the legi slation so
as not to prohibit (peaceful) spontaneous assemblies held on private property”.

CDL -AD(2007)042 Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Freedom of Assembly of
Azerbaijan, §11

“Blanket restrictions such as a ban on assemblies in specifi ed locations are in principle
problematic since they are not in line with the principle of proportionality which requires that the
least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate objective being pursued by the authorities
should always be given preferenc e.”

“Proper restric tions on the use of public places are based on whether the assembly will actually
interfere with or disrupt the designated use of a location. (…) The mere possibility of an
assembly causing inconvenience does not provide a justification for prohibiting it. ”

CDL(2012)014

– 21 –
CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 23
See also
CDL -AD (20 12)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events in
the Republic of Belarus, §84;

“The only legitimate restriction on location of an assembly is on site of hazardous areas and
facilities which are closed to the public .”

CDL -AD (2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §13,E, §36
See also:
CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Fre ely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §11,d;
CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §36

“It is therefore recommend ed that the blanket ban on assemblies in the vicinity of government
institutions and courts be deleted, and the management of security risks be left to the relevant
law enforcement bodies.”

CDL -AD ( 2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on th e Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 11,e
See also
CDL -AD (2012) 006 OSCE /ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Ma ss Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §94;

“It is therefore recommended that the blanket restriction on assemblies close to educational or
public health institutions be removed. However, due to legitimate fears of disturbance of medical
care and educati onal process, reasonable regulation of time, place and manner is permissible
so as to prevent assemblies and other speech activities that materially interference with the
activities in such buildings. It is recommended that such regulation be permitted on a case by
case basis.”

“However, mere inconvenience to the institutions mentioned in the Draft Law (schools,
hospitals, prisons, courts) should not be a reason for prohibition. Using “devices that are
sources of noise etc.” should not necessarily be ground for prohibition. The assembly must
genuinely interfere with the activities at such sites. In order to make one’s point, some noise will
almost inevitably be essential and temporary disturbance should not result in prohibition. This
applies equally to state buildings and di plomatic missions as to other buildings”.

CDL -AD(2009)052 , Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful
Events of Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §51

“Rather than listing premises on which public events are always p rohibited or are dependent on
a procedure determined by the President of the Russian Republic (see Article 8.4 Assembly
Act), general criteria in the Assembly Act should set out in what circumstances and to what
extent an assembly might pose a threat to th e listed buildings or to the function carried out in

CDL(2012)014 – 22 –
them. Such criteria could then be applied to specific cases when an assembly is proposed.
These criteria should be laid down in the Assembly Act itself in order to give adequate
guidelines for implementi ng decrees. The same suggestions must be made in relation to Article
8.2.3.1 Assembly Act (concerning regulations on the procedure for holding public events at
transport infrastructure sites). ”

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, mee tings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §34

“In conclusion, the Venice Commission stresses that it is the privilege of the organiser to decide
which location fits best, as in order to have a meaningful impact, demonstrations often need to
be conducted in certain specific areas in order to attract attention (“Apellwirkung”, as it is called
in German) 6. R espect for the autonomy of the organizer in deciding on the place of the event
should be the norm. The State has a duty to fac ilitate and protect peaceful assembly 7. The
judgment of the Constitutional Court finds the law unconstitutional (CDL -REF(2013)012,
page 15) in relation to the powers of the Russian Federation constituent entities’ to establish
specially designated sites bu t only insofar as it does not set clear statutory criteria for the
executive authorities which adequately guarantee equal legal conditions for all citizens to
exercise their right of assembly when deciding upon such sites. The judgment confirms that
such s ites are, in principle, permissible. The Venice Commission does not agree with this
position.

The Venice Commission has already expressed the view that the Russian Assembly Law
confers too broad discretion on the executive authorities to restrict assembli es, for instance by
giving them the power to alter the format of the public event for aims (in particular the need to
preserve the normal and smooth circulation of traffic and people) which go beyond the
legitimate aims contained in Article 11 ECHR. The As sembly Law fails to indicate explicitly that
such discretion must be exercised with due respect for the essential principles of “presumption
in favour of holding assemblies”, “proportionality” and “non -discrimination”.

In conclusion, the Commission finds that the provision in the June 2012 amendments of
specially designated places as the venues to be used as a rule for all public events will hinder
rather than facilitate the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly and is therefore
incompatible with i nternational standards. “

CDL -AD(2013)003 Opinion on Federal Law No. 65 -FZ of 8 June 2012 of the Russian Federation
amending Federal Law No. 54 -FZ of 19 June 2004 on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Picketing and the Code of Administrativ e Offences, §§ 42 – 44

“A blanket ban on assemblies after certain hours is a disproportionate response to the risk of
interference with the legitimate enjoyment of the rights of others, and it would be indeed
preferable to deal with it through restrictio ns on the manner in which an assembly is conducted
(such as the use of sound amplifiers or lighting).”

See also CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings,
demonstrations, marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §35

“Whilst the right to count er-demonstrate does not extend to inhibiting the right of others to
demonstrate, an “imminent danger of a clash” should not necessarily be a reason for prohibiting
6 See e.g. Opinion on the law on conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies and demonstrations of Armenia, CDL –
AD(200 4)039, para. 38: Joint Opinion on the Public Assembly Act of the Republic of Serbia, para. 34
7 Guidelines, principle 2.

CDL(2012)014

– 23 –
one of the assemblies from taking place at the same time and in the same vicinity. Emphasis
should be placed on the state’s duty to protect and facilitate each event and the state should
make available adequate policing resources to facilitate both to the extent possible within sight
and sound of one another”.

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opini on on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §25

“/…/ all persons and groups have an equal right to be present in public places to express their
views. Thus, persons have a right to assemble as cou nterdemonstrators to express their
disagreement with the views expressed by another public assembly. Indeed, in such a case,
there is a possibility of disruption of an assembly by a counter -demonstration, and it is the
state’s positive obligation to preven t disruption of the event, against which counter –
demonstrations are organized. Where possible, the authorities should take measures to ensure
all assemblies can take place, rather than use the notification of simultaneous events as a
justification of impos ing automatic restrictions and prohibitions. Furthermore, the state has a
positive obligation to provide adequate policing to facilitate counter -demonstrations within sight
and sound of one another”.

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organisin g and Conducting Peaceful
Events of Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 53

“(…) Any restrictions placed on time and location of holding a particular assembly should pass
the test of proportionality in each individual case”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §13, F

“It must be highlighted, that blanket legislative provisions, which ban assemblies at specific
times or in particular locations, require much greater jus tification than restrictions on individual
assemblies”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 31

“(…) Local authorities are authorised to change the time, place and route of peace ful
spontaneous assemblies only in case a real threat is posed to its conduct or the safety of its
participants or those in the neighbourhood. They can do this only after notifying the organizers
of the reasons for such a decision. However, it is recommend ed that that the authorities also
notify the participants of the reasons why such decision was made. It is also important to
provide the organizers the possibility to challenge the decision of the local authorities before the
appropriate authorities, inclu ding in court”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 39

“Article 26(2) implies that candidates/parties wishing to organize a campaign event in
places/venues belongi ng to state or municipal government, first need to receive a permission
from the authorities. The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recommend that this provision
be amended so that it is worded as a “notification” rather than “permission”.”

CDL -AD(2011)025 Joint opinion on the draft law on presidential and parliamentary elections, the
draft law on elections to local governments and the draft law on the formation of election
commission s of the Kyrgyz Republic adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections , §79

CDL(2012)014 – 24 –

“At the outset it should be noted, that the OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission have
consistently maintained and continue to maintain, that prisoners should not be precluded
from enjoying the right to freedom of assembly. Further, while a conviction might be
combined with the deprivation of several civil rights in some legal systems, such a
deprivation of rights has to be proportionate. The OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission
remain of the stance that it cannot be qualified as proportionate at all to exclude prisoners,
persons in detention or in custody from organizing any event irrespective of the negative
impact of a criminal offence. However, it should be acknowledged that such ass emblies
generate a series of special security considerations that should be taken into account and
that penitentiary institutions are not places open to the public, therefore, assemblies taking
place thereon, ought be addressed in separate regulations rela ting to penal institutions and
rights of convicted.”

CDL -AD(2011)031 Joint opinion on the draft law on freedom of peaceful assembly of Ukraine by
the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ ODIHR , §19

“Article 11 further provides that people may not protect their identity by wearing masks. Such
prohibition is in violation of the right to freedom of expression and also the right to personal
identity, a person’s manner of appearance under Ar ticle 17 of the ICCPR and Article 8 of the
ECHR respectively. As stated by the OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Guidelines, “The
wearing of a mask for expressive purposes at a peaceful assembly should not be prohibited, so
long as the mask or costume is not w orn for the purpose of preventing the identification of a
person whose conduct creates probable cause for arrest and so long as the mask does not
create a clear and present danger of imminent unlawful conduct ””.

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commis sion Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events in
the Republic of Belarus, §108;

“The prohibition of the use of masks and other means of disguise, which is part of Assembly
Laws of several other countries, can, in principle, be justified. However, the test of
proportionality has to be applied in this field as well. The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR
have previously expressed the view that “the wearing of a mask for expressive purposes at a
peaceful assembly should not be prohibited so long as the mask or cos tume is not worn for the
purposes of preventing the identification of a person whose conduct creates probable cause for
arrest and so long as the mask does not create a clear and present danger of imminent unlawful
conduct.” 8 In the Commission’s view, a bl anket ban on wearing any kind of mask at a peaceful
assembly represents a disproportionate restriction of freedom of assembly.”

“Participants may not carry weapons etc. (Art. 6 para 4.2). This is adequate in order to
guarantee the peaceful nature of assemblies. T he prohibition against bringing or consuming
alcohol (Article 6 para. 4.2 of the Assembly Act as amended) should instead be restricted to
cases where there are objective and reasonable grounds for believing that the person in
question has consumed alcohol and that the consumption may lead to risks of concrete
violations of public order or where people, being in a state of inebriation, want to participate. In
addition and importantly, the prohibition of alcohol should not be used as a justification for
routi ne controls of all participants.”

8 See Guidelines, para. 98.

CDL(2012)014

– 25 –
CDL -AD(2013)003 Opinion on Federal Law No. 65 -FZ of 8 June 2012 of the Russian Federation
amending Federal Law No. 54 -FZ of 19 June 2004 on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Picketing and the Code of Admin istrative Offences, § 29

“Pickets by one single person under the Assembly Act are exempt from notification (indeed an
assembly is made up of more than two persons). New Article 7 para. 1 1 specifies that there
must be a distance to be determined but of no more than 50 metres between single picketers.
The possibility is given to the courts to declare (retrospectively) that the sum of the single
picketers “united by a single concept and overall organisation” constituted a public event. The
consequences of suc h a decision would be that the public event has not met the applicable
legal regulations, and the organisers and the participants are exposed to administrative liability.

“The Venice Commission notes in the first place that this provision makes the admin istrative
offence dependent on the subjective assessment carried out a posteriori by a court of the unity
of the concept and the common arrangement. This makes it impossible for a picketer to
anticipate whether his or her a priori lawful conduct – picketin g without prior notice – will lead to
an administrative offence, which is incompatible with the requirement of legality of any
interference with the right to freedom of free expression as well as of assembly.”

CDL -AD(2013)003 Opinion on Federal Law No. 6 5-FZ of 8 June 2012 of the Russian Federation
amending Federal Law No. 54 -FZ of 19 June 2004 on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Picketing and the Code of Administrative Offences, §§ 30 -31

“The Commission stresses its conviction that san ctioning as an offence – with rather heavy
minimum and maximum penalties – not only the organisation of, but also “public calls for” and
“participation in a mass simultaneous presence or movement of citizens” which have caused the
almost inevitable consequ ences of a mass presence of people, that is any “damage to green
spaces or hindrance the movement of pedestrians or traffic or to citizens’ access to dwellings or
transport or social infrastructure facilities”, amounts to a disproportionate interference wi th the
right to freedom of assembly. As it stands, this provision will have deterrent effects on many
events, notably creative activities using new forms of public activities and of participation in
matters of public interest, including flash mobs. The fre edom of assembly is not restricted to
traditional forms of assemblies; the guarantee is open to new ones.”

CDL -AD(2013)003 Opinion on Federal Law No. 65 -FZ of 8 June 2012 of the Russian Federation
amending Federal Law No. 54 -FZ of 19 June 2004 on Assembli es, Meetings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Picketing and the Code of Administrative Offences, § 57

Designation by the State authorities of assembly locations

“All public spaces should be open and available for the purpose of holding assemblies and so,
official designation of sites suitable for assemblies inevitably limits the number of public places
that may be used for an assembly as it excludes locations that are suitable for assemblies,
simply because they have not been designated.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Jo int Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia, by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR §37
See also :
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §36;
CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §42

“42. It is posi tive that the Draft Law does not allow the State authorities to designate certain
locations for holding assemblies, which also falls in line with the OSCE/ODIHR and Venice
Commission recommendations.”

CDL(2012)014 – 26 –
CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

“36. Paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article 2 of the Act allow the local authorities to designate certain
locations fo r holding assemblies. Designation by the authorities of assembly locations raises
concerns as it is incompatible with the very concept of the right to peaceful assemble as a
fundamental freedom. As already mentioned above, all public spaces should be open and
available for the purpose of holding assemblies and so, official designation of sites suitable
for assemblies inevitably limits the number of public places that may be used for an
assembly as it excludes locations that are suitable for assemblies, simp ly because they have
not been designated. The only legitimate restriction on location of an assembly is on site of
hazardous areas and facilities which are closed to the public. It is therefore recommended to
amend these provisions so as to include streets , sidewalks, and parks and to ensure that the
list of possible locations in not exhaustive or better to delete from the legislation any attempt
to designate areas.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint opinion on the public Assembly Act of the Republic on Serbia by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

6. NOTIFICATION OF ASSEMBL IES

“A regime of prior authorisation of peaceful assemblies is not necessarily an infringement of the
right but this must not affect the right as such”.

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria ,
§6
See also
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §70;

“The recommendations outlined (…) emphasize that the notification procedure is for the
purpose of providing information to the authorities to enable the facilitation of the right to
assemble, rather than creating a system where permission must be sough t to conduct an
assembly. This emphasizes that the freedom to assemble should be enjoyed by all, and
anything not expressly forbidden in law should be presumed to be permissible”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §35

“Any regime of prior notification must not be such as to frustrate the intention of the organisers
to hold a peaceful assembly, and thus indirectly restrict their rights (for instance, by providing fo r
too detailed and complicated requirements, and/or too onerous procedural conditions)”.

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §38

“It is ther efore strongly recommended to the authorities to make it clear in the Act that only a
prior notification and not an application requiring permission is needed”.

“The Venice Commission stresses that, while the Assembly Law formally does not empower the
exe cutive authorities not to accept a notification or to prohibit a public event, it does empower
them to alter the format originally envisaged by the organiser for aims which go far beyond the
legitimate aims required by the ECHR. One of these aims is the “n eed to maintain a normal and
smooth operation of vital utilities and transport infrastructures”: which is practically impossible in
case of large or moving demonstrations. It has further been conceded and is indeed explicitly

CDL(2012)014

– 27 –
set out in Article 5.5 of the Assembly Law that if the organisers disagree with the local
authorities’ motivated proposal to change the format of the public event, the latter is de facto
prohibited. Therefore, in the Venice Commission’s view, since the permission is rarely given, the
notification or notice, in substance, amounts to a substitute for a request of a previous
permission, to an “authorization procedure de facto”. 9 “

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of t he Russian Federation, §21
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §39

“It is recommended that the length and conditions for the notification pro cedure be reasonable in
relation to both the authorities and organizers and participants. The draft Law should also allow
for adequate time in order that judicial review may take place, if needed before the scheduled
assembly date”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §8,F

“Any notification process established by the Act should not be onerous and must not frustrate
the intention of the organisers to hold a p eaceful assembly, and thus indirectly restrict their
rights.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §16

“It is recommended that the organizers of a public assembly be required to p rovide written
notification of an assembly within a clearly articulated timeframe so as to facilitate the
arrangements to be made by the state bodies. The form used to notify the authorities should
also ensure that relevant details of the proposed event ar e set out in a clear manner;
consequently, oral notification should be allowed solely in exceptional cases”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 15,F
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §5,h

“The Venice Commission recalls in this context that the subjection of public assemblies to an
authorisation or no tification procedure should not encroach upon the essence of the right as
long as the purpose of the procedure is to allow the authorities to take reasonable and
appropriate measures in order to guarantee the smooth conduct of any assembly, meeting or
othe r gathering, be it political, cultural or of another nature. 10”

9 This latter expression is used in the opinion of the dissenting constitutional Judge Kononov in relation to
Judgment N 484 -O-P of 2 April 2009. The same view was expressed by the Commissioner for Human Rights in
the Russian Federation: “the notification procedure of holding all kinds of public assemblies established by the
Federal Law on Assemblies, Meetings , Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing tends to degenerate into an
authorisation procedure, which is not founded in the law”: Special Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights
in the Russian Federation “On the constitutional right to peaceful assemb ly in the Russian Federation”, 2007.
10 ECtHR, Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia of 23 October 2008, § 43; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, § 35; Oya
Ataman v. Turkey of 5 December 2006, § 39; Rassemblement jurassien et Unité jurassienne v. Switzerland, no.
8191/78, C ommission decision of 10 October 1979, DR 17, p. 119; and also Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v.
Austria, judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 12, §§ 32 and 34.

CDL(2012)014 – 28 –
CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §10

“The alteration of the place of the assembly by the auth orities means that events cannot be held
in places chosen by the organizer within sight and sound of their targeted audiences or at a
place with a special meaning for the purpose of the assembly. The Venice Commission recalls
that respect for the autonomy of the organizer in deciding on the place of the event should be
the norm. The Constitutional Court has rightly specified that the newly proposed time and place
must correspond to the social and political objectives of the event, and this requirement
provi des some safeguard against depriving the proposed public event of any impact. But even
assuming that the alternative proposals do comply with this principle, it must be underlined that
in principle the organisers should be permitted to choose the venue and the format of the
assembly without interference.”

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §23

“In conclusion as regards the procedure for notification of public events as set out in the
Assembly Law, the Venice Commission considers that this procedure is in substance a request
for permission. Furthermore, the Assembly Law confers too broad discretion on the executive
authorities to restrict assemblies, for instan ce by giving them the power to alter the format of the
public event for aims (in particular the need to preserve the normal and smooth circulation of
traffic and people) which go beyond the legitimate aims contained in Article 11 ECHR.”

CDL -AD(2012)007 Op inion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §30

“The right to discuss the intention to organise a political demonstration falls under the category
of political speech which renders Arti cle 8 of the Law an unjustifiable interference with the
freedom of expression and of speech. This ban on advance announcement of the assembly
appears to be censorship. An advance announcement of an assembly that the government
blocks can be remedied by an announcement by the organizers that there has been a
cancellation or change, while t he impact of a political demonstration is enhanced by the
coverage it gets in the media, restrictions thereon, would have a negative effect on the full
exercise of this ri ght. “

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §88;

6.1 Length of the notification period

“/…/ although there are no clearly established standards as to the length of the notificatio n
period, the deadlines for organizers to submit a notification 12 days prior to the event and for the
regulatory authority to consider the notification within 6 days appear to be unnecessarily long
and difficult to justify. It is recommended that the leg islator consider reducing the notification as
well as the decision making period .”

“It is recommended that if a notification period is established in the Act, the time limits set down
for the application to be made should be more flexible, in the sense that they should be s et forth
“as a rule”.

CDL(2012)014

– 29 –
CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 17

“The notification of holding the peaceful assembly shall be considered as filed on the day it is
received by the res ponsible body of executive power or a body of local self -government. It is
recommended to focus on the day of submission of the notification and/or the day of sending
the notification instead of focusing on the arrival of the notification, because unintent ional delays
might occur due to post services.”

CDL -AD(2010)033 , Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 29

“The requirement that organizers notify of cancellation no less than 24 hours prior to event may
be impractical as well as creates a potential for subsequent punishment for anyone who fails to
do so. It is recommended that the requirement of 24 hours notice be removed or changed to a
requirement to notify of cancellation as early as possi ble”.

“Time limits should be so set that the decision of the executive body and the decision of the
court at first instance can be delivered in time to allow the assembly to take place on the original
intended date should the court find in favour of the organisers.”

CDL -AD (2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan , § 39

“In the event that a notification period remains in place, its length and conditions should be
reasonable not only in relation to the authorities but also allowing for a judicial revi ew to take
place before the scheduled assembly date. Omissions in the notification should be easily
rectifiable without causing unnecessary delay of the assembly”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice Commiss ion
and OSCE/ODIHR , §13, C

Art 5.5 of the Assembly Law states in terms that the promoter shall not have a right to hold an
event when notice was not filed in due time. This rule is disproportionate: as a blanket rule, it
does not permit any exceptional ci rcumstances of a particular case to be taken into
consideration.

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §33

From a procedural point of view, the duty to submit a notification “no later than 15 days prior to
the anticipated date” of the assembly, provided for in Article 5 par 4, is onerous. It should be
changed to 3 -5 days and should apply only “as a rule”, in order to be more flexible. An assembly
cannot be forbid den only because a certain deadline to notify the intent to hold it was not met.
As a matter of fact, according to the OSCE/ODIHR -Venice Commission Guidelines, “ it is not
necessary under international human rights law for domestic legislation to require ad vance
notification about an assembly .”11
11 OSCE/ODIHR -Venice Commission Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2 nd editi on, par 4.1.

CDL(2012)014 – 30 –

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §78;

6.2 Notification requirements

“The notification also requires the approximate number of participa nts (…). This may sometimes
be possible but equally an organiser, despite providing a best estimate, may prove to be
significantly wrong in the numbers that participate. This should not lead to any consequences
for the demonstration unless they are linke d to legitimate reasons for restriction detailed in
Article 11(2) ECHR”.

CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §30

“As for the threshold of 100 participants in order for a dem onstration to require prior notification
and authorisation, it seems arbitrary and, at any rate, useless: as has already been underlined
(see §25 above), a demonstration with less than 100 participants may well constitute a more
serious threat to public or der than a more crowded one”.

CDL -AD(2004)039 Opinion on the Law on conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and
Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia, §30

“It is highly appreciated that neither assemblies of up to 100 participants nor spontaneous
assemblies are subject to the notification regime (Article 9). It is good practice to require
notification only when a substantial number of participants are expected, or not to require prior
notification at all for certain types of assembly. It is recommen ded to enhance Article 24, which
permits an organizer to proceed without a notice if s/he “ is of the opinion ” that there will be no
more than 100 participants by adding “ believes in good faith ” as this indicates that the organiser
is objective in his or he r anticipated estimations”.

CDL -AD(2010)049 , Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §44

“The requirement of a written “ decision of the competent body ” of an entity that or ganizes an
assembly to be presented with the notice (Article 14 §2) may amount to an unnecessary
burden: the entity may be an ad hoc unincorporated association, formed solely for the purpose
of holding the assembly. Furthermore, the decision to hold the as sembly may have been made
by an informal consensus reached at a meeting without formal records. So long as an individual
organizer has complied with the Draft Law and s/he can be held legally responsible for the
activity and the filing of the notice should be sufficient.”

CDL -AD(2010)049 , Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §51

“Since the State is only entitled to interfere with the exercise of the right (…) neither publ ic
authorities nor local self -government are vested with a right to prohibit or restrict an assembly
due to a lack of notification. Potentially, written notification would better facilitate the
administration of all required procedures by the relevant stat e bodies, and would also ensure
that the details of the proposed event are clearly set out in a way that avoids the potential for
later misunderstanding though the requirements imposed on the authorities in relation to the
‘action plan’ will ensure that al l necessary details are committed to writing”.

CDL(2012)014

– 31 –
CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §32

“The right to proceed in the absence of a well -founded objection by the autho rities is a corollary
of the presumption in favor of holding assemblies and is indeed central to the enjoyment of
freedom of assembly.
/…/
It is strongly recommended that the Amendments include an express provision allowing for the
organizers, in the abse nce of timely presented objections by the authorities to the notification, to
proceed with the planned assembly in accordance with the terms notified and without restriction.

CDL -AD(2008)025 , Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the Right of Citi zens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §§34 -35
See also:
CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Co mmission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 13,N

6.3 Regulatory authority and decision -making

“It is recommended to establish one authorized body from state and/or local self -government
agencies to deal with assemblies, with whom organizers would be able to effectively coor dinate
their plans”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 80
See also :
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bu lgaria ,
§49

“The public should be informed which body is responsible for taking decisions about the
regulation of freedom of assembly, and this should be clearly stated in law. The regulatory
authority should ensure that the general public has adequate a ccess to reliable information
relating to public assemblies, and also about its procedures and operation. The regulatory
authorities must comply with their legal obligations, and should be accountable for any failure –
procedural or substantive – to do so. Liability should be gauged according to the relevant”.

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §7

“It is recommended in addition that a co -oper ative process between the organizer and the
authority be established in order to give the organizer the possibility to improve the framework of
the assembly”.

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria ,
§41

“It is necessary that the decision -making and review process is fair and transparent.”
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§39

“According to Article 6 of the Law, authorities appear to be gran ted unfettered discretion in
prohibiting events based on date, time, number of participants, weather conditions, payment for
services to uphold public order provided by internal affairs authorities and expenses linked to

CDL(2012)014 – 32 –
medical services and the cleaning u p of the area following the mass event. The provision is in
fact so wide, that the discretion of the authorities in deciding the prohibition of an assembly is
almost beyond the capacity of the organizers to take measures to comply with the respective
prov ision.”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §81;

“In relation to this process the Venice Commission and the OSCE -ODIHR recall that the
competent bodies are required to act pr omptly and the organiser has full rights to participate in
any hearings that take place which are required if any limitations or a prohibition are being
proposed. […].

There should also be an express requirement that organisers may be legally represented, be
informed of all evidence and call witnesses at the hearing. Where the Authorized Body decides
to impose conditions or prohibit an assembly, its reasons should be provided promptly in writing.
Finally, such a procedure should not be limited to an admini strative body. It is recommended
that the law provides for a judicial procedure, too”.

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § §56 -57

“The organizer may r equest the executive and local self -government authorities to issue a
written confirmation of receipt of such notice on the same day. This confirmation should contain
the title of this body, full name and signature of an official who received the notice as well as the
date and time of receiving the notice.”

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §37
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Asse mblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 15, h

“The Act is also recommended to require the authorities to issue a written confirmation to the
organisers immediately upon receipt of the notification. The act should also stipu late that any
failure to provide confirmation by the authorities is tantamount to such a confirmation being
issued.”

CDL -AD(2010)03 1 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §22
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)0 52 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine, §5, J;
CDL -AD(2010)049 , Interim joint opinion on the draft law on assemblies of the Republic o f
Armenia by the Venice commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §40

“In case of prohibition, the organizer has to be informed about this decision by way of a
substantiated order by the competent authority within 48 hours. It is recommended to add the
requirement tha t the decision shall be published in written form and additionally, shall be made
public in an appropriate way (for instance, on a dedicated website). This guarantees that the
public has access to reliable information about events taking place in the publi c domain”.

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§53
See also:

CDL(2012)014

– 33 –
CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §53

“The focus in Article 21 para 4 upon promoting co -operation between assembly organisers
and the authorities is warmly welcomed. Nonetheless, the autonomy of the assembly must
be respected. The organizer must be free to deviate from suggestions made by the
authorities if they believe that they undermine the purpose of the assembly. While the
organiser’s rejection of any proposed measures could in the end lead to the imposition of
further restrictions (and even the termination of the entire assembly, i f this is proportionate in
the circumstances), it is worth drawing attention to the ODIHR -Venice Commission
Guidelines which state, in this regard, that: ‘The organizer of an assembly should not be
compelled or coerced either to accept whatever alternative (s) the authorities propose or to
negotiate with the authorities about key aspects, particularly the time or place, of a planned
assembly. To require otherwise would undermine the very essence of the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly.’”

CDL -AD(2011)0 31 Joint opinion on the draft law on freedom of peaceful assembly of Ukraine by
the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR , §67

7. REVIEW AND APPEAL

“It is necessary that the decisio n-making and review process is fair and transparent.”
“The OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Guidelines recommend an effective remedy through
a combination of administrative and judicial reviews and not just before the administrative court.
Furthermore, an or ganizer shall be given the opportunity to take legal actions not only against
the prohibition of a public event, but also against restrictions that affect the event”.

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulg aria,
§39, 55

“/…/ the Venice Commission recalls that the right to an effective remedy entails a right to
appeal the substance of any restrictions or prohibitions on an assembly. Appeals should be
decided by courts in a prompt and timely manner so that a ny revisions to the authorities’
decision can be implemented without further detriment to the applicant’s rights. In addition, the
Draft Law should establish clearly the remedies available to organisers in cases of improperly
prohibited or dispersed assemb lies. The prompt and thorough investigation of any suspected
unlawful use of force by the police during assemblies, including dispersal of the assemblies,
should also be ensured.

The subsequent prosecution, if required, must also be safeguarded. The organ isers must be
entitled to be represented at the appeal if they so wish. They must also be entitled to be aware
of and see all evidence to be adduced by the other side and to challenge it. The court should be
expressly required to give a written judgment of its decision promptly and before the planned
assembly (relief by way of injunction should otherwise be possible, that is to say including the
possibility of lifting restrictions imposed by the Authorised Body). Any restrictions imposed must
be in accordan ce with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and must be
based on factual, concrete and objective grounds”0.

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OS CE/ODIHR , § 61
See also:
CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §51

CDL(2012)014 – 34 –
See also
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Bela rus, §40; see also §85

“Appeals should take place in a prompt and timely manner so that any revisions to the
authorities’ decision can be implemented without further detriment to the applicant’s rights.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §51
See also :
CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia, §61

“It is recommended to ensure that both the organiser and the involved state a gency have a right
to address the court, and the burden of proof lies with the restricting body, not the party
submitting the appeal/being restricted”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Ven ice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §8,P

“[…] it would be beneficial if the Act explicitly provided that the burden of proof for establishing
the grounds upon which an assembly may be banned lies with the body which seeks for the
assembly to be banned, both in administrative proceedings and as part of the judicial
proceedings”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 , Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 53

“[…] it is to be stressed that the organizer should always be hear d by the court before it decides
on the ban, and the court review should be “prompt so that the case is heard and the court
ruling published before the planned assembly date”.

CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by t he Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §43

“The procedure of review of decisions to ban an assembly should be established in such
manner so as to ensure that a decision on the legality of the ban on the assembly is made
available to organisers before the p lanned date of the assembly. Considering the narrow
schedule this can be achieved best by allowing for temporary injunctions”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §13, J and §52

“In addition, the Venice Commission underlines that it is crucial not only that the court may
genuinely review the decision of the public authorities, but also that it may do so before the
assembly takes place, or else that a system of relief via court inju nctions be available. “

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation §52

See also
CDL -AD(2013)003 Opinion on Federal Law No. 65 -FZ of 8 June 2012 of the Russian Federati on
amending Federal Law No. 54 -FZ of 19 June 2004 on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Picketing and the Code of Administrative Offences, § 37

CDL(2012)014

– 35 –
8. ASSEMBLY TERMINATION AND DISPERSAL

“The OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Guidelines emphasize t hat the termination and
dispersal of assemblies should be a measure of last resort”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 44
See also:
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §47
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §112

“The reasons for suspension , ban or termination of an assembly should be narrowed down to a
threat to public safety or danger of imminent violence. Furthermore, dispersal should not occur
unless law enforcement officials have taken all reasonable measures to facilitate and to protec t
the assembly from harm and unless there is an imminent threat of violence”.

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§58;
See also :
CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Ser bia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 13,G;
CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 5;
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Org anising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §5,u

“Not all violations of the law should lead to the suspension and termination of the public event,
which should be measures of last resort. Reasons for suspens ion and termination should be
narrowed to public safety or a danger of imminent violence (see Article 16.1 of the Assembly
Law).”

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federa tion, §44

“The provisions concerning termination of assemblies should be brought in line with the legality
and proportionality principle”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 13 ,t

“(…) Is recommended to reflect the necessity to differentiate between and assembly and the
behaviour of one individual or several individuals in an assembly. That is, the assembly should
not be prohibited or dispersed simply because an individual or gr oup commit acts of violence
and any such measures should only be taken against those particular individuals who violate
public order or commit or instigate unlawful actions .”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Ven ice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 48
See also :
CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the Right of Citizens to
Assemble Peaceably, Without Weapons, to Freely Hold Rallies and Demonstrations of the
Kyrgyz Republic by the Venice Commissi on and OSCE/ODIHR , § 48;
CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria ,
§60

CDL(2012)014 – 36 –

“An isolated outbreak of violence should be dealt with by way of subsequent arrest and
prosecution and not by termination of the as sembly or dispersal of the crowd”.

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 67

“[…] while expression should normally be protected even if it is hostile or i nsulting to other
individuals, groups or particular sections of society, there are specific instances of hate speech
that may be so insulting to individuals or groups as not to enjoy the level of protection afforded
by Article 10 of the ECHR to other forms of expression. This is the case where hate speech is
aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms laid down in the ECHR or their limitation to a
greater extent than provided therein. Even then, the resort to such speech by participants in an
assemb ly does not of itself justify the dispersal of the event, and law enforcement officials shall
take measures only against the particular individuals involved (either during or after the event)”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly o f Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 46

“Therefore it is recommended to add a provision that the participants of an event shall have a
reasonable and adequate amount of time to disperse, and shall be provided with a clear and
safe route for dispersal.”

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§62

“Prohibiting an assembly is the ultima ratio . Basing such a decision only on the content of the
message communicated, poses a most severe thre at to democracy. It should therefore be
avoided unless it is indispensable for ensuring the continuity of the democratic state (…).
Otherwise the assembly must be tolerated despite its aims. It may only be restricted or
prohibited for other reasons.”

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia and
Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 51

9. USE OF FORCE

“International standards require that law enforcement officials should use force only as a last
resort, in proportion to the aim pursued, and in a way that minimizes damage and injury.16
While it is not indispensable for the provision, a reference to liability for unlawful or excessive
use of force by law enforcement bodies might be beneficial, though such liability is necessarily
already contained in laws governing conduct of officials”.

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §71
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 50;
CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §41;
CDL -AD(2 006)033 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies in Ukraine by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §39
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §40

CDL(2012)014

– 37 –
“Measures taken by the police to ensure order, safety and security, including access to buildings
etc and removing people that “ rudely disturb the ordinary course of the assembly ” should be
proportionate. Removal should be limited to those situations, in which the disturban ce is
genuinely disruptive (and where removal will be less disruptive than leaving the disruptive
person on the scene)”.

CDL -AD(2010)049 , Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODI HR , § 66

10. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ORGANISER

“The Guidelines stipulate that the organization and holding of assemblies shall be exercised
both by individuals and by corporate bodies.”

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Mani festations of Bulgaria,
§19

“The prohibition for juveniles under the age of eighteen to be organisers is too restrictive. Such a
restriction can be imposed only if it is evident that a juvenile will not be capable of fulfilling the
requirements that the law imposes on an organizer 12. According to OSCE/ODIHR -Venice
Commission Guidelines “ in light of the important responsibilities of the organizers of public
assemblies …, the law may set a minimum age for organizers, having due regard of the
evolving capaci ty of the child… The law may also provide that minors may organize a public
event only if their parents or legal guardians consent to their doing so .”13 “

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §60;

“Second, the condition “eligible to vote” may imply that persons without legal capacity cannot be
organizers. This is not compatible with international standards on freedom of assembly, which
provide that “ all individuals should … be fa cilitated in the enjoyment of their freedom to
peacefully assembly, irrespective of their legal capacity .”14 It may also infer that stateless
persons, juveniles and foreign citizens may not be organizers.”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Jo int Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §61; see also §63

“The organiser is the person or persons with primary responsibility for the assembly and this
should not be compulsorily limited to a single individual. It may be practical to use the name of
one organiser as a point of contact with the authorities. However, it is not essential for all of the
responsibilities set out in the Draft Law of the organiser and leader to reside in a single
individual. In principle, it should be a ma tter for the organisers themselves as to who and how
many they should be. If there are several organisers they need not be a legal entity, and could
be a committee of individuals provided there is clarity as to who is involved in the organisation.”.

12 OSCE/ODIHR -Venice Commission Joint Opinion no. 592/2010 [CDL -AD(2010)033] on the Draft Law on
Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine, par 28; op cit footnote 21,OSCE/ODIHR -Venice Commission Interim Joint
Opinion no. 596/2010 [CDL -AD(2010)054] on the Draft Law on Assemblies of Armenia, issued on 22 December
2010.
13 Id, par. 58.
14 Id, par. 59.

CDL(2012)014 – 38 –
CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §40

“A peaceful event can be organized by several persons. It cannot be considered problematic if
one of these organisers is arrested and cannot make use of his rights and duties to the full
extent, because the other organisers might replace him in this regard.”

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice C ommission and OSCE/ODIHR , §30

“The Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR believe that the government should not decide
(by way of this Article) upon how the internal decision -making process of the organisers and
participants should proceed. The organisers of the assembly should be responsible for the
decision -making process”.

CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §27

“The law should therefore provide for a certain flexibility, for example by allowing the assembly
to be held with at least half of the organizers being present at the event, or by giving the
organisers the possibility to be replaced by representatives in case of necessity. If there is
adequate organising presence a nd sufficient control and communication with the police or other
authorities so as to allow for a peaceful assembly, then the failure of all organisers to attend
should not result in prohibition of the event.”

CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedo m of Assembly in Azerbaijan, §31

“It is also to be pointed out that organisers of assemblies should not be held liable for failure to
perform their responsibilities if they made reasonable efforts to do so. The organisers should not
be liable for the act ions of individual participants nor for the actions of non -participants or agents
provocateurs . Instead, individual liability should arise for any individual if he or she personally
commits an offence or fails to carry out the lawful directions of law enfo rcement officials”

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 41

“However, as concerns the holding capacity of the premises of the public event and an estimat e
of how many people will turn up to the assembly, the Venice Commission considers it unrealistic
to assume that an organiser could foresee the number of participants or that he or she could
count them at the time of the event, or that he or she could alwa ys be able to prevent
participants from staying if the number has been exceeded. An organiser is entitled to
encourage as many participants as possible to attend and persons who wish to attend have the
right in principle to do so as part of their freedom o f assembly. The Venice Commission
therefore considers it disproportionate to require the organiser to take measures (what
measures is unclear) to contain the number of participants and to make the organiser
responsible if he or she does not succeed. The or ganizer should only be liable, if he/she
intentionally provided false information relevant to estimating the possible number of
participants or tried to impede measures taken by the authorities in order to keep the number of
participants within the holding capacity of the place of the assembly during the event and that
this caused a threat to public order. The Commission therefore recommends that this provision
as well as Article 5 para. 4.3 be amended.”

CDL(2012)014

– 39 –
CDL -AD(2013)003 Opinion on Federal Law No. 65 -FZ of 8 June 2012 of the Russian Federation
amending Federal Law No. 54 -FZ of 19 June 2004 on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Picketing and the Code of Administrative Offences, § 24

“It is recommended to expand this provision in accordance w ith the OSCE/ODIHR – Venice
Commission Guidelines to the effect that the organizers shall not be held liable for actions of
individual participants or stewards who fail to adhere to the terms of their briefing, and that
under no circumstances the organizer of a lawful and peaceful assembly should be held liable
for disruption caused by others.”

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§21
See also
CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law o n Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §§41 -43;
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §36

“The obligation to submit a list of intended measures to be taken by the organiser in order to
ensure the maintaining of public order is incongruent with the scope of obligations of the
organisers. Organisers bear a certain responsibility to prevent disorder, however, this
responsibility should only extend as far as exercising due care to prevent interference with
public order by the assembly participants.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §16

“W hereas the organiser is indeed responsible for exercising due care to prevent disorder,
he/she cannot revert to the exercise of police power and cannot be required to do so. Moreover,
the citizen’s right of peaceful assembly mirrors the state’s duty to fac ilitate and protect such
events. This leads to the conclusion that the overall responsibility to ensure public order must lie
with the law enforcement bodies, not with the organiser of an assembly. The obligations of
organisers should be reduced to the exe rcise of due care, taking into account the limited powers
of the organiser, the more so since the responsibility of the authorities to provide public security,
medical aid etc. is already set out in Article 18.3 of the Assembly Law. “

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opi nion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation, §41

“The Venice Commission stresses again that an important part of the right to assemble
peacefully includes the right to become involved in all aspects of the organisation of an
assembly including playing the role of “organiser” as provided for in the 2004 Law on
Assemblies. The right to organise should not therefore be limited in the blanket fashion
prescribed in the Law and merely allowing a n individual to participate but not organise is not a
legitimate restriction under the terms of article 11(2) ECHR.

“The June 2012 amendments (Art. 5 para 3.6) give the organisers the right to demand that an
authorized representative of the internal affai rs authorities remove from the site of the public
event those participants who do not comply with their lawful requests. The Venice Commission
considers that this provision should specifically indicate that failure to do so will not entail any
negative con sequences for the organiser. It must be stressed that the authorities are entitled
(and may even be obliged) to act even without such a demand from the organiser.”

CDL(2012)014 – 40 –

“The obligations of organizers and stewards should be reduced, and the responsibility of the
au thorities, especially to provide public security and medical services clearly set up. The
organizers should not be liable for damage and violations inflicted by others”.

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Assembly of the Sarajevo Canton (B osnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §5
See also:
CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §43
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events in
the Republic of Belarus, §103; see also § 106 and §107

“According to A rticle 4 par 3, the person responsible for organizing an assembly on behalf of a
party, a trade union or an organization has to “enter into a written undertaking that the event will
be organized and held in accordance with the present Law.” This is, on one hand, useless, if the
“undertaking” has the purpose only to mention the intention of the organizers to follow,
inasmuch as possible, the provisions of the Law o n assemblies: the presumption is that the
legal provisions in force in a certain country will be obeyed. On the other hand, if the
“undertaking” has the purpose to attract the legal responsibility/liability of the organizers should
any provision of the Law be breached, then this is likely to impose an excessive burden upon
the organizers. In practice, this will not only discourage but also prove an insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of the freedom to assembly (see also section I below on the liability of
organisers and participants and compensation ).”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §66; see also §68

“Organisers cannot be held liable if they made reasonable efforts to prevent spontaneous
violence but the situation went out of their control (they exercised due care to prevent
interference with public order by the assembly participants). They cannot be held liable for
actions by third parties and they should not be held r esponsible for sporadic acts of violence by
either participants or non -participants. Holding organisers liable would be a disproportionate
response since this would imply that they are imputed responsibility for acts by individuals which
were not part of t he plan of the event and could not have been reasonably foreseen.”

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of Bulgaria,
§65

“The obligation to differentiate between peaceful and non -peaceful (violent) participant s,
however, should always rest on the state.”

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 43

“Likewise, organizers should not be liable for the actions of indiv idual participants. Instead,
individual liability should arise for any participant for committing an offence or failing to carry out
the lawful directions of law enforcement officials.”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on La w on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §114

“Article 15 par 2 contains a serious threat of liquidation for political parties, trade unions and
“other organizations” in case their authorized representatives failed to secure “the proper order
of orga nization and (or) holding of the gathering, meeting, street rally, demonstration and
picketing, that have caused damage of big amount or substantial harm to rights and legal

CDL(2012)014

– 41 –
interests of citizens, organizations or state or public interests […]”. A single v iolation of this Law
– even a minor or a “technical one” – will thus place an organization on the edge of dissolution.
Such a provision is excessive, disproportionate and thus, in conflict with international law and
standards.”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events in
the Republic of Belarus, §117

“Article 16 of this Law provides that harm “caused by organizers and participants of the mass
action to the state, citizens and organizations at the course of mass action, is subject to
compensation in order established by legislation of the Republic of Belarus”. This provision is
too broad and prone to potential abuse, as the requirement for compensation here does not
appear to be limited to damage intentionally or negligently inflicted, nor is it imposed on the
individual who actually inflicted that damage ”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events in
the Republic of Belarus, §118

11. FINANCING PEACEFUL ASSEMBLIES

“The stat e must not levy any additional financial charge for providing adequate and appropriate
policing. (…) Further to the above, it ought to be noted that organisers of public assemblies
should also not be required to obtain public -liability insurance for their events. Similarly, the
responsibility to clean up after a public assembly should lie with the municipal authorities. This is
because, imposing onerous financial requirements on assembly organisers is likely to constitute
a disproportionate prior restraint. ”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § §26 -27

“The organisers should not be liable in relation to financing of public services provided during an
assembly and their obligations regarding maintaining of public order should be reduced”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §13, I

“There is no reason to prohibit otherwise peaceful assemblies because of the c ontroversial
nature of their funding”.

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §5,o

12. LIABILITY OF PARTICIPANTS

“The freedom to take part in a peaceful a ssembly is of such importance that a person should not
be subjected to a sanction for participation in a demonstration which has not been prohibited so
long as this person does not himself or herself intentionally commit any unlawful act”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §41

CDL(2012)014 – 42 –
“The text should be completed in order to clearly specify that participants in unlawful assemblies
should be exempted from liability when th ey had no prior knowledge that the assembly had not
been authorized. Also, the text should mention that if an authorized demonstration turns out to
be non -peaceful, individual participants who did not commit any violent act cannot be
prosecuted solely on t he ground of participation in an illegal gathering.”

CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan, §43
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Co mmission and OSCE/ODIHR , §5,n

“Measures should be taken only against those persons who violate public order, use hate
speech or instigate violence, whereas not against the whole assembly”.

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of S erbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §13, H

“The Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR recommend that liability for failure to adhere to
any provision of the law be clearly stated, that a maximum penalty be explicitly provided, and
that in all ca ses the stated penalties be strictly proportionate to the nature of the breach, as the
way in which this legislation is applied in practice by the competent authorities might act as a
deterrent for the population’s readiness to avail itself of the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly”.

CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §47

“The Venice Commission did not have access to court decisions or other sources which allow
an evaluat ion of the practice on sanctions on failures to comply with the Assembly Law as
described by the Russian authorities and to confront this description with the criticism raised by
NGOs. The Venice Commission restricts its comment to raising concern that san ctions following
the mere failure by the organiser to meet the time -limits for notification or to “invite the
authorities to negotiate” their request for changing the venue and/or time -frames of the public
event or to comply with the alternative proposal o f the authorities are likely to be
disproportionate and have an unwarranted chilling effect on organisers of public events. ”

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federatio n, §47

“In their joint guidelines on freedom of assembly, the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice
Commission have argued that “the imposition of sanctions (such as prosecution) after an event
may sometimes be more appropriate than the imposition of restrictions pr ior to, or during, an
assembly”. They have added that “as with prior restraints, the principle of proportionality also
applies to liability arising after the event. Any penalties specified in the law should therefore
allow for the imposition of minor sanct ions where the offence concerned is of a minor nature.” 15´

15 OSCE/ODIHR -Venice Commission Guidelines on freedom of assembly, Explanatory notes, § 109 (CDL –
AD(2010)020) https://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2010/CDL -AD(2010)020 -e.pdf.

CDL(2012)014

– 43 –
“Even though their actual implementation depends ultimately on the courts 16, the June 2012
amendments impose penalties (both pecuniary sanctions and community service) which are
excessive for administrative offences with no violence involved and would be disproportionate.
These amounts will undoubtedly have a considerable chilling effect on potential organisers and
participants in peaceful public events. In addition, the different and more severe treatment w hich
is reserved to violations of the Assembly Act as compared to any other administrative offence
does not appear to be prima facie justified.

The Venice Commission therefore recommends that the sanctions be revised and drastically
lowered.”

CDL -AD(20 13)003 Opinion on Federal Law No. 65 -FZ of 8 June 2012 of the Russian Federation
amending Federal Law No. 54 -FZ of 19 June 2004 on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations,
Marches and Picketing and the Code of Administrative Offences, §§ 54 – 55

13. POLICING A SSEMBLIES

“The state’s positive duty to protect peaceful assembly requires that the police actively facilitate
the assembly and protect those participating in it.”

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §65

“In addition, the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR have in other opinions on freedom
of assembly laws emphasised the need for training of law enforcement officials in the human
rights standards rele vant to freedom of assembly. The Guidelines also emphasise the need for
training, awareness -raising and monitoring in relation to assemblies. A human rights approach
to policing assemblies is necessary to protect the freedom fully especially when police ma y be
placed in difficult and dangerous situations.”

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §69

“The role of the law enforcement personnel during an assembl y may include, when the situation
on the ground deteriorates (e.g. participants might begin using or inciting imminent violence),
imposing restrictions or terminating an assembly. In doing so, the law -enforcing authorities
should consider first their duty to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly”.

CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint Opinion on the Law on Peaceful Assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §41

“According to the Guidelines, photographing or video recor ding of participants by law
enforcement personnel is permissible. What is not permissible is the recording of such data and
the systematic processing or preserving the record, as it might give rise to violations of privacy”.

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, §49
See also
16 A report of the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation suggests that the proceedings of application of
administrative fines do not meet the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties on
account of the role of the prosecutor (he provides evidence of the administrative violations).

CDL(2012)014 – 44 –
CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus, §99;

“It has been not ed in other jurisdictions that an important element of developing a culture in
which assemblies are facilitated and respect is developed between those participating in an
assembly and the police is the overall quality of the policing operation and the degr ee of
understanding of, and respect for, human rights evidenced by the police on the ground.
Consideration should therefore be given to reviewing the training needs of police officers and
other officials with responsibility for issues related to freedom of assembly. ”

13.1 Responsibilities of the law enforcement bodies

“(…) If an assembly is prohibited according to the law and the organisers refuse to follow the
legal constraints, the law enforcement bodies should manage the assembly in such a way as to
ensure the maintenance of public order. If appropriate, the organizers (or other individuals) may
be prosecuted at a later stage. This is preferable to requiring the police to attempt to ‘terminate’
the assembly, with the risk of use of force and violence. It is especially important when an
ass embly is unlawful but peaceful, i.e. where participants do not engage in acts of violence32.
In such a case, it is important for the authorities to exercise tolerance as any level of forceful
intervention may be disproportionate”.

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Op inion on the Draft Law on Assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , §38
See also:
CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the Order of Organising and Conducting Peaceful Events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 62

“In addition, the provisions according to which law enforcement officials can limit the number of
participants to an assembly in view of the capacity of the place, which is a rather subjective
assessment, are not admissible under international standar ds. Moreover, carrying out body
searches, the inspection of items in their possession and not admitting participants to the place
of assembly should not be permitted except where there is evidence that these measures are
necessary to prevent serious disord er. The language of the law contains no limit on the power of
authorities to engage in such activities. They should only be permissible pursuant to previous
notice to organizers plus a court order following a court hearing on the lawful character of such
measures given the particular circumstances and a demonstration of the necessity of such
action. The burden of proof should be on the authorities.”

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law on Mass Events
in the Republic of Bela rus, §109;

“(…) The law -enforcement personnel shall remove individuals inciting unlawful acts upon the
request of the organizers and participants. (…) this removal occurs after efforts to dissuade the
misconduct have been unsuccessful, and second, the law -enforcement personnel is also vested
with the right to make an independent assessment of the situation. This is necessary in order to
prevent removal of, for example, counterdemonstrators whose behaviour might be provocative
but lawful. It is also impo rtant to ensure that this measure is taken as a measure of last resort.”

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 54

CDL(2012)014

– 45 –

“The prompt and thorough investigation of any suspected unlawful use of force by the police
during assemblies, including dispersal of the assemblies, should also be ensured.”

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint Opinion on the on the Public Assembly of Serbia by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR , § 51

CDL(2012)014 – 46 –

14. REF ERENCE DOCUMENTS

CDL -AD(2002)27 Opinion on the Law on Assemblies of the Republic of Moldova.

CDL -AD(2004)039 Opinion on the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and
Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia

CDL -AD(2005)007 Opinion on the Draf t Law making Amendments and Addenda to the Law on
Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia

CDL -AD(2005)021 Joint Opinion on proposed Am endments to the Law “on conducting
meetings, assemblies, rallies and demonstrations” and to related provisions of the Criminal
Code of the Republic of Armenia (pursuant to discussions in Yerevan on 17 March 2005) by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2005)035 Opinion on the Law making Amendments and Addenda to the Law on
Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations of the Republic of Armenia

CDL -AD(2006)033 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on Peaceful Assemblies in Ukraine by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2006)034 Opinion on the Law on Freedom of Assembly in Azerbaijan

CDL -AD(2007)042 Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Law on Freedom of Ass embly of
Azerbaijan

CDL -AD(2008)018 Joint Opinion on the amendments of 17 March 2008 to the Law on
Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations of the Republic of Arm enia by
the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2008)020 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law amending and supplementing the law on
conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies and demo nstrations of the Republic of Armenia by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2008)025 Joint Opinion on the Amendments to the Law on the right of citizens to
assemble peace ably, without Weapons, to freely hold rallies and demonstrations of the Kyrgyz
Republic by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2009)034 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law on As semblies of the Kyrgyz Republic by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2009)035 Opinion on the Draft Law on Meetings, Rallies and Manifestations of
Bulgaria

CDL -AD(2009)052 Joint Opinion on the order of organising and conducting peaceful events of
Ukraine by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2010)016 Joint Opinion on the Act on Public Ass embly of the Sarajevo Canton (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) by the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2010)031 Joint opinion on the public Assembly Act of the Republic on Serbia by the
Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2010)033 Joint opinion on the law on peaceful assemblies of Ukraine by the Venice
Commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL(2012)014

– 47 –

CDL -AD(2010)049 Interim joint opinion on the draft law on assemblies of the Republic of
Armenia by the Venice commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2010)050 Joint opinion on the draft law on peaceful assemblies of the Kyrgyz Republic
by the Venice commission and OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD(2011)025 Joint opinion on the dra ft law on presidential and parliamentary elections,
the draft law on elections to local governments and the draft law on the formation of election
commissions of the Kyrgyz Republic adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections

CDL -AD(2011)031 Joint opinion on the draft law on freedom of peaceful assembly of Ukraine by
the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR

CDL -AD (2012)006 OSCE/ODIHR – Venice Commission Joint Opinion on Law o n Mass Events
in the Republic of Belarus

CDL -AD(2012)007 Opinion on the Federal Law on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations,
marches and pickets of the Russian Federation

CDL -AD(2013)003 Opinion on Federal Law No. 65 -FZ of 8 June 2012 of the Russian
Fede ration amending Federal Law No. 54 -FZ of 19 June 2004 on Assemblies, Meetings,
Demonstrations, Marches and Picketing and the Code of Administrative Offences

ICNL

ICNL

Compilation of Venice Commission Opinion Concerning Freedom of Assembly

Document Information: