The Senate upheld the judgment of the District Administrative Court rejecting an application of an individual for the prohibition to organize a march and emphasized the importance of the geopolitical context.

The individual had applied for organizing the march, stating that its purpose was to protest against the actions of the ruling political parties in Latvia such as destroying monuments, banning traditions and the use of a mother tongue of minorities in education system. The Riga City Executive Director banned the march, referring to the need to protect the country's democratic order and public safety. The individual appealed against this decision to the District Administrative Court, but the application was rejected. Dissatisfied with the court's judgment, the individual submitted a cassation complaint to the Senate.

The Senate explained that the main purpose of an assembly, a march and a picket is to allow the public to gather and express views or opinions in public. The exercise of this right is an essential element of a democratic society, providing the public with the opportunity to influence political processes, including by criticising state authority and protesting against its actions. There are, however, cases in a democratic society where it is permissible to restrict this right.

The Senate held that, in general, restrictions on the freedom of assembly may be justified for the purpose of protecting the democratic order of the state and public security, which also serves as an instrument of self-defence for the state and its democratic order.

When examining whether the prohibition of the march was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims, the Senate emphasised the importance of the geopolitical context. In circumstances where Russia is carrying out aggression against other countries, Latvia, in order to preserve the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic order of its country, must take particular care to avoid creating a breeding ground for views justifying aggression or otherwise encouraging support for aggression.

The Senate did not find that the District Administrative Court's assessment of the proportionality of the restriction on freedom of assembly in the particular political and geopolitical context was unreasonable. The Senate had no doubt that the declared march would provide a platform for the expression of views that divide society and support Russian aggression or the narrative that justifies it. Accordingly, the Senate agreed with the District Administrative Court's conclusion that the prohibition of the march was commensurate in the present case.

Judgment of the Senate of 25 November 2024 in Case No SKA-112/2024 (A420209922)

 

Ilze Butkus, Communication adviser of the Supreme Court

Telephone: +371 67020302; e-mail: ilze.butkus@at.gov.lv