The 150-Metre Assembly Ban
On 3 April, the Bishkek city administration issued Decision No. 214 prohibiting 'mass gatherings' within 150 metres of any building occupied by a state body for 30 days, citing 'possible destabilisation' after a call for a protest against electricity tariffs. An organiser, A., filed notice for a rally of 150 people on 12 April along a route that passes the Ministry of Energy; the municipality refused permission without offering an alternative route or time. A. applied to the administrative court for annulment of the refusal and for an interim measure permitting the rally. The municipality's written response referred only to 'security considerations' and attached no risk assessment, no police recommendation, and no evidence of prior disorder. The court must decide whether to grant interim relief and how to review the refusal. The judge also knows that a separate constitutional challenge to the 30-day decision has not been filed.
1. What constitutional and statutory standards govern the refusal, and which court should decide the constitutionality of Decision No. 214?
Read the worked answer
Classification first. The refusal of permission is an individual administrative act, so the administrative court has jurisdiction over A.'s claim. Decision No. 214 itself is a normative act. If A. asks the court to annul the 30-day rule as unconstitutional, the administrative court should not do that; constitutional review of normative acts belongs to the body vested with constitutional review. The judge should separate the two issues and decide the individual refusal.
Constitutional standard. Freedom of assembly may be restricted only by law, for a legitimate aim such as public order, safety, or the rights of others, and only where the restriction is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. A prior ban is especially suspect: the state must show a concrete risk, not a general fear. The court should ask whether the 150-metre rule has a legal basis, whether it is blanket, whether it leaves room for individual assessment, and whether the municipality actually considered A.'s notice.
Practical consequence. The judge can interpret the local rule consistently with the Constitution and review the refusal without striking down the normative act. If the only defensible reading of Decision No. 214 is an unconstitutional blanket ban, the court should state that problem and use whatever referral procedure the law provides rather than silently enforcing an unconstitutional rule. The court should not simply defer to the phrase 'security considerations'.
2. Apply proportionality to the facts. Is a blanket 150-metre exclusion and a refusal without an alternative route proportionate?
Read the worked answer
Legitimate aim. Protecting access to the Ministry of Energy and preventing disorder can be a legitimate aim.
Suitability. A 150-metre exclusion might protect entrances, but the municipality produced no risk assessment, no police recommendation, and no evidence of prior disorder. Without that, the measure is not shown to be suitable for the specific risk.
Necessity. The municipality must show that less restrictive means were considered. Alternatives include changing the route, changing the time, limiting the number of participants, erecting barriers, or deploying police liaison. The refusal offered no alternative at all. A blanket 150-metre zone applied mechanically to a peaceful 150-person rally is not the least restrictive means.
Balancing. Advance notice was given, no weapons or violence are alleged, and the route itself carries the message. The burden on assembly is severe. A general reference to 'security' cannot justify a prior ban. The refusal is therefore disproportionate.
Interim relief. Because the rally date is close, the court may suspend the refusal or order the municipality to reconsider within a short fixed period. If it permits the rally, it should impose tailored conditions: no blocking of entrances, a police liaison officer, and a defined route and time. The court must give reasons and must not authorise an unlimited assembly.
3. What remedy should the court order, and what should the operative part and core reasoning contain?
Read the worked answer
Remedy. The court should declare the refusal unlawful, annul it, and order the municipality to reconsider A.'s notice within 24 hours. If the court finds that reconsideration cannot cure the defect before 12 April, it may permit the rally with conditions.
Core reasoning. The judgment should address each proportionality step: legitimate aim; absence of evidence; availability of less restrictive measures; and the chilling effect of a blanket zone. It should explain why 'security considerations' without a risk assessment cannot satisfy the burden on the administration. It should also explain why the court is not deciding the constitutionality of Decision No. 214 if that issue is reserved to the constitutional review body.
Operative part. Declare the refusal unlawful; annul it; order reconsideration within 24 hours; order that, pending reconsideration, A. may hold the rally on a specified route at a specified time subject to conditions; order the municipality to pay costs. The court should not award damages without a claim and proof. If the court instead refers the normative act to the constitutional review body, it should stay the proceedings and explain why the referral is necessary.