Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Law and Politics
Reference:

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

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0706.2023.9.40662

EDN:

ZHDKPA

Received:

05-05-2023


Published:

08-10-2023


Abstract: The subject of the study is the legal regulation of public relations arising in the process of realization by citizens of the Russian Federation of the constitutional right to participate in public events. 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 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. The conducted research of certain issues of legal regulation and practice of holding public events allows us to identify possible prospects for the development of legislation on public events, as well as to make suggestions for improving its current provisions. Research methods: the study was conducted using classical general scientific and special legal methods of cognition (historical, logical, including systemic, formal-legal, hermeneutic, etc.) in combination with an interdisciplinary approach (assessment of legal phenomena through the prism of social and political factors). Of particular importance for the purposes of this study is the method of comparative jurisprudence, which allowed us to establish trends in the development of legal regulation of the procedure for holding public events in foreign countries. The novelty lies in the proposals formulated by the authors of the article to improve the provisions of Federal Law No. 54-FZ of June 19, 2004 "On Meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions and picketing".


Keywords:

public events, counter-measures, rallies, meetings, demonstrations, processions, picketing, forms of democracy, citizens, public opinion

This article is automatically translated.

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.

References
1. Salenko, A.V. (2022). Public events as a means of peaceful dialogue between civil society and the state. Ural Forum of Constitutionalists. Vol. 7. Part 1. pp. 93-101.
2 On the Referendum of the Russian Federation (2004) : Federal Constitutional Law No. 5-FKZ of June 28. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Text : electronic.
3On the basic guarantees of Electoral rights and the Right to participate in a Referendum o. Citizens of the Russian Federation (2002) : Federal Law No. 67-FZ of June 12. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Text : electronic.
4On Countering extremist Activity (2002) : Federal Law No. 114-FZ of July 25. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Text : electronic.
5. Hutuev, V. A. & Gutaev, A.M. (2020).Features of regulatory regulation of mass events in the Russian Federation and their classification. Gaps in Russian legislation, 3. Vol. 13. pp. 264-268.
6. Simonova, S. V. (2015). Forms of public events: problems and approaches. Bulletin of YarSU. Humanities series, 1(31), pp. 53-54.
7. Salenko, A.V. (2018). Freedom of peaceful assembly in the Russian Federation: several theses on topical issues. Journal of Russian Law, 1, pp. 120-127.
8On Amendments to Articles 2 and 7 of the Federal Law "On Assemblies, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing" (2016) : Federal Law No. 61-FZ of March 9. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Text : electronic.
9. Gagloev, D. V. (2015). Constitutional and legal regulation of the Institute of public events in the Russian Federation and European countries at the present stage : comparative legal research : dissertation ... Candidate of Legal Sciences : 12.00.02. Moscow.
10. Vashkevich, A. E. (2013). Spontaneous assemblies: national legislation of European countries and case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Comparative Constitutional Review, 2(93). pp. 44-54.
11. Prokofiev, K. G. (2016). Comparative analysis of Russian and foreign legislation on responsibility for non-compliance with the rules of mass events. Humanities, socio-economic and social sciences, 12, pp. 166-169.
12In the case of checking the constitutionality of Part 1 of Article 7 of the Federal Law "On Assemblies, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing" in connection with the complaint of citizen A.N. Yakimov (2014) : resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 14-P of May 13. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Text : electronic.
13. Trofimova, E. O. (2019). The problem of refusal to hold public events in Russia. Questions of Russian Justice, 2, pp. 123-130.
14On certain issues related to the organization and holding of public events on the territory of the Irkutsk region (2012) : the Law of the Irkutsk Region of December 20, No. 146-OZ. Retrieved from https://base.garant.ru/34743036/
15On Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law "On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing" (2012) : Federal Law No. 65-FZ of June 8. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Text : electronic.
16On the procedure for submitting a notification on holding a public event and ensuring certain conditions for the exercise of citizens' rights to hold public events in the Samara Region (2005) : Law of the Samara Region of April 6, No. 105-GD. Retrieved from https://docs.cntd.ru/document/945011225
17In the case of checking the constitutionality of paragraphs 1 and 6 of Article 5 of the Law of the Komi Republic "On Certain Issues of Holding Public Events in the Komi Republic" in connection with the complaints of citizens M.S. Sedova and V.P. Tereshonkova (2019) : resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 1, No. 33-P. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Text : electronic.
18In the case of checking the constitutionality of the provisions of paragraph 5 of Part 4 of Article 5 and paragraph 6 of Part 3 of Article 7 of the Federal Law "On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing" in connection with the complaint of citizen V.A. Teterin (2019) : resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 18, No. 24-P. Access from the ConsultantPlus legal reference system. Text : electronic.
19. Maximov, A. A. (2021). Online rally as a way to realize political human rights. Actual problems of Russian law, 2, pp. 30-38.
20. Ushakov, D. N. (2008). A large explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow: House of Slavic Books.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review is, as its name implies, the problems of legal regulation of public events at the present stage. The stated boundaries of the study are fully respected by the author. The methodology of the research is not disclosed in the text of the article, but it is obvious that the scientists used universal dialectical, logical, formal legal, hermeneutic, comparative legal research methods. The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is justified quite briefly: "The importance of high-quality legal regulation of the right of citizens to assemble peacefully, without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, marches and picketing does not cease to be emphasized in constitutional law science [1, pp. 93-94]." It is necessary to agree with the scientist that "... in order to ensure the consistency of the provisions of federal legislation, it seems necessary to bring other normative legal acts into line with the definitions of Federal Law No. 54-FZ." In addition, the author must indicate the names of the leading scientists who have studied the problems raised in the article, as well as disclose the degree of their study. The article does not explicitly say what the scientific novelty of the work is. In fact, it manifests itself in a number of proposals and recommendations of the author ("... in order to ensure consistency of the provisions of federal legislation, it seems necessary to bring other normative legal acts into line with the definitions of Federal Law No. 54-FZ"; "... an increase in the number of forms of public events enshrined in the law will lead to even greater problems of their differentiation and accumulation of legal prescriptions""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. ... 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 the notification"; "... I would like to recommend that the regional legislator take a more thoughtful approach to determining the venues of public events, taking into account the established judicial practice," etc.). Of course, these suggestions and recommendations deserve the attention of the readership. The article makes a definite contribution to the development of the national science of constitutional law. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the article is quite logical. In the introductory part of the work, the author substantiates the relevance of his chosen research topic. In the main part of the work, the scientist examines the main theoretical approaches to determining the forms and types of public events, the expediency of the existence of a rule setting upper and lower limits for the time of notification of a public event, the problem of determining the venues of public events, as well as the problem of legal regulation of public events arising in connection with the development of information technology. The final part of the article contains general conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the article fully corresponds to its title, but is not without some drawbacks. Thus, the author cites as examples of classifications of forms and types of public events proposed in the scientific literature the theoretical approaches proposed by V. A. Hutuev, A.M. Gutaev, S. V. Simonova, but does not carry out their critical analysis, does not highlight their advantages and disadvantages. Is it advisable to distinguish between forms and types of public events at all? What is meant by them? The final part of the work needs to be finalized, which will be discussed in more detail below. The bibliography of the study is presented by 20 sources (normative legal acts, dissertation work, scientific articles, acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, dictionary). From a formal and factual point of view, this is quite enough. The nature and number of sources used in general allowed the author to reveal the topic of the study, but some provisions of the work need to be clarified. There is an appeal to opponents, both general and private (D. V. Gagloev, E. O. Trofimova), and it is quite sufficient. The scientific discussion is conducted by the scientist correctly; the provisions of the article are reasoned to the necessary extent. Conclusions based on the results of the study are available, but they are general in nature, i.e. they are not detailed ("... proposals to adjust the provisions of Federal Law No. 54-FZ, as well as the above comments on the approach of the regional legislator to determining the venues of public events will contribute to creating conditions for citizens to exercise the constitutional right to assemble peacefully without weapons, the development of political the activity of the Russian population, and, consequently, the development of civil society and the rule of law"). Meanwhile, the conclusions should combine all the proposals and recommendations developed by the author on improving constitutional legislation and relevant law enforcement practice. The article needs additional proofreading. There are typos in it. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by experts in the field of constitutional law, provided that it is finalized: disclosure of the research methodology, additional justification of the relevance of the topic of the article chosen by the author, clarification of certain provisions of the work, formulation of clear and specific conclusions based on the results of the research, elimination of violations in the design of the work.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. The reviewed article "Problems of legal regulation of public events at the present stage" as the subject of research has legal norms regulating public relations related to the right of "citizens to gather peacefully, without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, marches and picketing." Research methodology. The methodological apparatus of the article consists of modern methods of scientific cognition: historical, formal-logical, legal-technical, formal-dogmatic, comparative jurisprudence, etc. The author of the article also used such scientific methods and techniques as deduction, modeling, systematization and generalization. The use of modern methods of scientific cognition allowed the author to conduct research on the hypothesis at a high level, and correctly argue his conclusions and proposals. The relevance of the study is beyond doubt. The organization and conduct of public events are properly regulated in Russian legislation, but the dynamics of public relations themselves require appropriate changes in legislation. In this regard, the author's proposals to improve legislation in this area of public relations deserve attention (for example, "For these reasons, it seems timely to make the following changes to Federal Law No. 54-FZ: 1. In paragraph 3 of Article 2, when fixing the definition of an assembly, 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"). Indeed, the global digitalization of all spheres of human activity requires proper legal regulation, including issues related to the organization and holding of public events. Scientific novelty. As the author of the article correctly notes, many legal scholars have addressed the problems of legal regulation of public events, however, the aspect of the study chosen by him has elements of scientific novelty: the author points out the need to introduce changes in the legislation regulating the organization and holding of mass events caused by the processes of digitalization. Style, structure, content. The article is written in a scientific style, using special legal terminology. The material is presented consistently, clearly and competently. The topic has been revealed. The content of the article corresponds to the stated topic. The article is logically structured, although it is not actually divided into parts. There are no comments on the content. Bibliography. The author has used a sufficient number of sources for writing a scientific article, including publications of recent years. As a recommendation to the author: it is necessary to check the correctness of the design of the sources for compliance with the bibliographic GOST. Appeal to opponents. The test contains references to the points of view of other scientists. All appeals to opponents are correct. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article "Problems of legal regulation of public events at the present stage" is recommended for publication in the scientific journal "Law and Politics", as it corresponds to the editorial policy of this scientific publication. This article is written on an urgent topic, is characterized by scientific novelty and has practical significance. The article may be of interest to a wide audience, primarily for specialists in the field of constitutional, administrative and information law, as well as for teachers and students of law schools and faculties.