The Blanket Ban Around the Freedom Monument
Riga's executive director issues an order banning all public gatherings within 100 metres of the Freedom Monument from 1 to 30 November. The order cites two planned counter-protests, expected traffic disruption, and a police assessment that 20 counter-protesters may clash with a 150-person peaceful vigil. The vigil organisers had notified the municipality 10 days in advance, as required. The order does not ban the counter-protest separately and gives no end time for the vigil. The organisers challenge the order in the administrative court, arguing that Articles 103 and 116 of the Satversme protect peaceful assembly. The municipality replies that the ban is a lawful safety measure and that the counter-protesters' rights must also be protected. The court must decide whether to suspend the order and how to apply proportionality.
1. What fundamental right is engaged, and what test applies to the ban?
Read the worked answer
The right engaged is freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 103. A restriction must satisfy Article 116: it must have a basis in law and be necessary in a democratic society. That requires a legitimate aim, such as public safety or the protection of the rights of others, and a proportionality analysis: suitability, necessity and a fair balance. The court should ask whether the measure is prescribed by a legal norm with sufficient precision, whether less restrictive means exist, and whether the restriction is content-neutral. A municipal executive order may be the form of the measure, but it still needs legal authority and cannot be arbitrary. The reasoning is that assembly is a cornerstone of democratic participation, so the burden is on the authority to justify the restriction, not on the organisers to prove that their vigil is harmless.
2. Is a 30-day blanket ban around a symbolic site likely to satisfy proportionality?
Read the worked answer
Probably not. A ban covering every gathering for 30 days in a 100-metre zone around a symbolic national site is broad and not narrowly tailored to the assessed risk. The police forecast concerns 20 counter-protesters and a 150-person vigil; that risk can usually be addressed by police protection, physical separation, time limits, route conditions or a targeted ban on violent counter-demonstrators. The order does not explain why a month-long ban on all assemblies is necessary, and it gives no end time for the vigil. The symbolic character of the Freedom Monument also weighs against a blanket exclusion, because assembly there may be a form of political expression. The reasoning is that less restrictive means appear available, so the measure fails the necessity limb of proportionality unless the authority can show a concrete, continuing and unmanageable threat.
3. Could the municipality lawfully ban only the counter-protest?
Read the worked answer
It could restrict a specific counter-protest if there is concrete evidence of violence or a serious threat, but it must not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. The authority would need to identify the risk, choose a narrowly tailored measure and provide police protection for the peaceful vigil. A content-neutral time, place and manner rule is more defensible than a ban aimed at one group's message. The reasoning is that the state has a positive duty to protect peaceful assemblers, and fear of a hostile reaction is not a reason to silence the peaceful event. The court should therefore examine whether the municipality separated the risk assessment for each event and whether the counter-protest restriction was based on conduct rather than opinion.