Problems of legal regulation of public events at the present stage

Ivanova Elena Leonidovna ORCID: 0000-0002-2733-150X PhD in Law Associate Professor, Department of State and Legal Disciplines, Irkutsk Law Institute (branch) of the Federal State State Educational Institution of Higher Education "University of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" 665034, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Shevtsova str., 1 lenai@list.ru

Tol'zak Aleksei Evgen'evich Student, Department of State and Legal Disciplines, Irkutsk Law Institute (branch) of the Federal State state Educational Institution of Higher Education "University of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" 665034, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Shevtsova str., 1 atolzak@mail.ru

Trends in the development of legal regulation of the modern system of society, aimed at the general democratization of most of its spheres, the emergence of new forms of citizen participation in the management of state affairs cause in science a special interest in public events as a form of realization by citizens of the Russian Federation of the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, processions and picketing. The development of socio-political processes inevitably leads to the emergence of new forms of public events, the need for legal regulation of which is still subject to comprehension in legal science.

Over the past decade, the legislation regulating the exercise by citizens of the Russian Federation of the constitutional right guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation has undergone significant changes. The importance of high-quality legal regulation of the right of citizens to gather peacefully, without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, marches and picketing does not cease to be emphasized in constitutional and legal science ^{[1, pp. 93-94]}. The works of the following authors are devoted to the issues of legal regulation of the organization and conduct of public events in the science of constitutional law: S. A. Avakyan, M. V. Baranova, N. S. Bondar, D. V. Gagloev, D. K. Grigoryan, A.V. Demina, N. V. Kopteva, O. E. Kutafina, L. V. Lazareva, V. V. Larina, N. V. Loskutova, E. A. Lukasheva, A. A. Makartseva, L. A. Nudnenko, A.V. Pchelintseva, R. A. Romashova, A.V. Salenko and others.

Detailed legal regulation of the implementation of the right in question is carried out by Federal Law No. 54-FZ of June 19, 2004 "On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing" (hereinafter – Federal Law No. 54-FZ). The method of legislative consolidation of the definition of a public event, chosen in Article 2 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ, indicates that this Federal Law exhaustively defines the forms of public events.

At the same time, in other federal laws, one can find both the forms of public events enshrined in Federal Law No. 54-FZ and those not provided for by it. For example, Federal Constitutional Law No. 5-FKZ of June 28, 2004 "On the Referendum of the Russian Federation" ^[2] also specifies rallies, demonstrations and processions as means of holding, but already mass events (subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1). At the same time, in addition to these forms of mass events, this Law also provides for meetings with citizens, public debates and discussions and other events. An analysis of the provisions of Federal Law No. 67-FZ of June 12, 2002 "On Basic guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right of Citizens of the Russian Federation to Participate in a Referendum" ^[3] (hereinafter – Federal Law No. 67 FZ) showed that along with the general concept of "public event", the legislator uses the term "agitation public event" (article 53). In addition, despite the fact that the assembly in Federal Law No. 54-FZ is indicated as an independent form of public event, in Federal Law No. 67-FZ in some cases is designated as a form of agitation public event (paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 53). A fundamentally different relationship between the concepts of "assembly", "rally", "demonstration", "procession", "picketing" and "public event" follows from the provisions of Article 10 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of July 25, 2002 "On Countering extremist Activity" ^[4]. According to the provisions of paragraph three of this article, meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches, picketing are considered as types of mass actions, while public events are considered as an independent form of expression of public opinion.

It is obvious that the lack of complete identity of terminology, the introduction of special types of public events is due to the specifics of legislation on referendums and elections, as well as legislation regulating special types of public relations. At the same time, in order to ensure the consistency of the provisions of federal legislation, it seems necessary to bring other regulatory legal acts into line with the definitions of Federal Law No. 54-FZ.

The uncertainties noted above regarding the forms and types of public events are also described in legal science.

At the same time, some of the proposed classifications are expansive in comparison with the list established by law. Thus, V. A. Hutuev, A.M. Gutaev propose a classification of public events according to several criteria:

1) by content: socio-political (congresses, symposiums, conferences), sports (sports games, sports matches, Olympiads), cultural (festivals, folk festivals);

2) by the level of organization and holding of mass events: international, all-Russian, regional, local (held on the territory of individual districts and municipalities);

3) depending on the venue (mass events held in buildings, structures and mass events held in an open area).

These authors also, depending on the frequency of mass events, are divided into: one–time – events that are held once, and periodic – events that are held more than once in accordance with a certain schedule, and according to the subject composition and the possibility of participation in a mass event: public - events that do not require the commission of additional actions and limited by the number of participants – events in which persons who have performed additional actions (for example, the purchase of a ticket) can take part ^{[5, pp. 265-266]}.

The analysis showed that the proposed classifications simultaneously use an indication of both forms and types of public events, without specifying differences in the understanding of these categories. It seems that for the purposes of this study, this is also not of a fundamental nature, since the above classifications, from the point of view of developing directions for improving the provisions of legislation establishing the rules for organizing and holding public events, in our opinion, do not have a decisive significance, although they certainly enrich the horizons of researchers.

S. V. Simonova, conducting a comparative legal analysis of the legal regulation of forms and types of public events, comes to the conclusion about the differences in approaches in domestic and foreign legislation. As this author notes, in foreign legislation, as a rule, it is the category of "assembly" that is used as a collective concept to denote any public action ^{[6, pp. 53-54]}. S. V. Simonova, in addition to the problem of the basis for dividing public events into forms, justifiably points to another already mentioned above relevant to the legal regulation of the issue under study the problem of the open or closed nature of the list of forms of public events ^{[6, pp. 53-54]}.

In this regard, opinions are often expressed in the literature about the insufficiency of the forms of public events provided for in the legislation for the full realization of the right of citizens guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Thus, A.V. Salenko notes that since the adoption of Federal Law No. 54-FZ, such forms of public events have arisen as mass walks and jogging, multi-kilometer processions, nanomitings, flash mobs, protest tent camps, mass parties, political concerts" and others that have not received legal regulation ^{[7, p. 120]}. The recognition of the existence of various forms of public events has given rise to disputes regarding their consolidation in the law: to fix them as additional forms along with existing ones or to follow the path of their broad interpretation without specifying specific forms of public events. An analysis of individual amendments made to Federal Law No. 54-FZ indicates that the legislator is following the second path. Thus, Federal Law No. 61-FZ of March 9, 2016 "On Amendments to Articles 2 and 7 of the Federal Law "On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing" ^[8] equated the rally to a demonstration, and tent camps, towns and other forms to picketing (they are defined in the law as "prefabricated collapsible structures"). In our opinion, this approach is justified, since an increase in the number of forms of public events enshrined in the law will lead to even greater problems of their differentiation and the accumulation of legal regulations.

Also, the object of increasing attention of researchers are counter–measures, or rather, the need to consolidate them in Russian legislation. Thus, D. V. Gagloev in his dissertation notes that Russian legislation does not provide for this specific type of public event. By a counter-measure, he understands an event aimed "at expressing disagreement by a certain part of civil society with the goals, views and beliefs of participants in another public event" ^{[9, p. 128]}. Some authors, considering counter-measures as a separate type of spontaneous or spontaneous public speeches of citizens, note that the practice of such events is provided for in a number of European countries, for example, in Germany ^{[10, p. 51]}. Their distinctive feature is the absence of the need to submit a preliminary application to public authorities for the purpose of approval and approval. Such events are held about the events that have just occurred or are planned in the near future in order to quickly influence the decisions of the authorities. At the same time, a reservation is made that spontaneous events should not be planned in advance, i.e. the preparation of posters, leaflets is considered illegal. In this case, the action is stopped. In domestic legislation, such an opportunity is not provided if the event is organized by a group of persons. However, Article 7 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ assumes that in the case of a single picketing without a collapsible structure, sending a notification to state bodies or local self-government bodies is not required.

In our opinion, this type of public event at this stage of the development of Russian society is also not regulated by law justifiably. The control event, except for the need for its prompt implementation (while the issue raised by the public at the "main public event" has not lost its relevance and the relevant decision has not been made by state bodies) does not have any specifics that distinguish it from other public events. A distinctive feature is only the order of organization of such an event, which is not a criterion for distinguishing it as an independent form of public events.

In addition to the conceptual problem regarding the forms of public events, it seems timely to make a few comments on other provisions of Federal Law No. 54-FZ.

1. An important problem in the legal regulation of the mechanism of holding public events, in our opinion, is the rule fixed in part 1 of Article 7 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ, which establishes the upper and lower limits of the time for submitting a notification of holding a public event. So, as a general rule, such notification is submitted no earlier than 15 and no later than 10 days before the day of such an event. If such a notification is submitted by a deputy of a legislative (representative) body of state power or a deputy of a representative body of a municipal entity for the purpose of meeting with voters, the deadline is set at 10 and 5 days, respectively.

If we analyze foreign legislation, then this provision is found only in certain countries. There are no double limits in most States. For example, Article 2 of the Public Order Act in the UK stipulates that organizers need to contact the relevant authorities at least 6 working days in advance. In Washington, the state law provides for such a period of 15 days ^{[11, p. 168]}.

In our opinion, the upper limit set for submitting an application for holding a public event is unreasonable and restricts the rights of citizens to hold meetings, rallies and other public events. If we turn to judicial practice, we can be convinced of the difficulty of complying with this condition ^[12]. In this regard, we consider it necessary to make appropriate changes to the specified part – to exclude the upper limit of the time for submitting a notification.

2. Some scientists, for example, D. V. Gagloev, E. O. Trofimova, criticize the provisions of Article 8 of Federal Law No. 54-FZ ^{[9, p. 115, 13, p. 125]}, which give regional and local authorities the authority to independently determine the list of specially designated places for organizing public events.

Scientists believe that these provisions infringe on the rights of citizens to hold peaceful assemblies, marches, rallies, etc. In accordance with this article, regional authorities have the right to determine "specially designated or adapted for collective discussion of socially significant issues and expression of public sentiment, as well as for the mass presence of citizens for public expression of public opinion on topical issues of a predominantly socio-political nature." Proceeding from this, special legal acts have been adopted in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation establishing such places or places in which it is prohibited to hold a public event. For example, the Law of the Irkutsk Region No. 146-OZ of December 20, 2012 ^[14] prohibits holding public events in the following places: 1) stopping points on regular transportation routes; 2) retail markets; 3) buildings occupied by state and local government bodies; 4) religious buildings and structures, other places and objects specially designed for worship, prayer and religious meetings, religious worship (pilgrimage); 5) places of construction work in accordance with the project of work and others.

Despite the fact that the described provisions were included in Federal Law No. 54-FZ more than ten years ago ^[15], they are still the subject of legal disputes. Thus, by the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June 4, 2020, Article 34 of the Law of the Samara Region "On the procedure for submitting a Notification of a Public Event and ensuring Certain conditions for the exercise of citizens' rights to hold public events in the Samara Region" was recognized as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation ^[16], since the ban established by it in the system of current legal regulation the right to hold meetings, rallies, processions and demonstrations in places located closer than 150 meters from military facilities, buildings of educational organizations, buildings and facilities used for worship, religious rites and ceremonies, buildings occupied by organizations in which inpatient medical care is provided, goes beyond the constitutional limits of the legislative powers of the subjects of the Russian Federation. Similar situations of contradiction of regional laws of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are also reflected in a number of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ^{[17, 18]}.

Despite the general positive assessment of this opportunity provided to the regional legislator, we believe that the relevant practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicates that the regional legislator is not always able to accurately establish a balance between the right of citizens to assemble peacefully and the public interest.

If we turn to foreign legislation, then such restrictions are much less common. For example, in some US states it is prohibited to hold public events near "zones of silence", government quarters, administrative buildings, etc. in order to protect public interest. In the UK, it is permissible to hold these events in any public place, by which the legislator means "any road (street), any place to which the public or any part of it has access at any time for a fee or free of charge, both in accordance with the law and by virtue of the granted or implied permission" ^{[11, p. 168]}.

It also seems to us that it is necessary to establish appropriate restrictions only in cases of compliance and protection of public and private interests. In this regard, I would like to recommend that the regional legislator take a more deliberate approach to determining the venues of public events, taking into account the established judicial practice.

3. At the end of the study, it is worth dwelling on the problems of legal regulation of public events arising in connection with the development of information technologies. For example, on April 20, 2020, in the Yandex. Navigator" and "Yandex.Maps" on the central squares of various cities of Russia began to appear labels with comments expressing dissatisfaction with the current political situation in the country," which were subsequently removed. Similar situations could be found on the YouTube platform, the Vkontakte social network and others. However, the restrictive measures applied by law enforcement agencies, which actually equate such actions to public events, have no legal basis. The sphere of these relations remains insufficiently regulated, which is why there is a gap in the regulation of public events and there is a corresponding need for their legal regulation. The Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, V. D. Zorkin, spoke about this: "Citizens have a constitutional right to protest, that is, the right to express their dissatisfaction and disagreement with illegal or ineffective actions of state and municipal authorities by all legal means" ^{[19, p. 32]}. Based on this statement, it follows that public relations, if they take place, should receive regulatory regulation.

It should be noted that in real life there is a combination of such Internet actions and public events. But their legal nature is not defined. For example, a citizen decided to organize a single picketing. There are technologies that allow you to make a call that creates a hologram of the subscriber. The first such call was made in 2017. During the picket, this citizen uses this technology. The question arises – how should this act be qualified: as a single picket, or as a meeting, or as a rally? Federal Law No. 54-FZ should contain answers to such questions.

First of all, it is worth noting that we recognize such a citizen (participating through digital technology) as a subject of a public event. This follows from the essence of a public event, which presupposes free expression of opinions, and is also a guarantee of the right enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation ("an action accessible to everyone"). Article 2 of the said Law in the definitions of the assembly and the meeting contains the concept of "joint presence" and "mass presence", respectively. The key word here is "presence". Dictionaries interpret it as "finding, personal stay in any place at the moment" ^[20], which in its meaning excludes the use of appropriate technologies.

For these reasons, it seems timely to make the following amendments to Federal Law No. 54-FZ:

1. In paragraph 3 of Article 2, when fixing the definition of the meeting, after the word "joint", add the words "personal, as well as through digital technologies";

2. In part 1 of Article 6, after the word "voluntarily", add the words "personally, as well as through digital technologies".

Summing up, I would like to emphasize once again that the classifications of public events currently proposed in science are largely abstracted from legislation. The forms of public events reflected in the current regulatory legal acts are of practical importance, however, there is currently no urgent need to increase them. Nevertheless, if such a need arises, we believe that the most successful way would be to expand the features of existing forms in order to prevent the emergence of new contradictions and collisions.

The most urgent at present, in our opinion, is the solution of problems related to the organization and conduct of public events identified by law enforcement practice. It is for these purposes that the study formulated proposals for improving Federal Law No. 54-FZ, as well as comments on the approach of the regional legislator to determining the venues of public events.

In addition to the proposals outlined above to adjust the provisions of Federal Law No. 54-FZ in order to improve the possibilities for organizing public events, we also consider it necessary to exclude the upper time limit for submitting an application for the intention to hold it, since at present this requirement creates obstacles to citizens' exercise of their constitutional rights.

These actions will contribute to the creation of conditions for citizens to exercise the right to assemble peacefully without weapons, the development of political activity of the Russian population, and, consequently, the development of civil society and the rule of law.