City Permit Rule and the Right to Peaceful Assembly

Issue. The Constitution allows restrictions on expression and peaceful assembly only 'by law' and only when necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim such as public order. Analysis. A city council resolution is a normative act of a local self-governing body, not a statute adopted by the State Great Khural. It can implement a law, but it cannot itself create a prior-authorization regime that restricts a constitutional right. No statute is cited as the basis for the ten-person threshold or the five-day application. The refusal therefore lacks an adequate legal basis. The mayor's argument that indoor gathering remains possible does not cure the defect: the right protects public, visible assembly, and the state must justify the specific restriction. Conclusion. The refusal should be annulled; the resolution should be reviewed as a normative act, but the immediate challenge to the refusal is an administrative claim.

Legitimate aim. Public order can justify limited time, place, and manner rules, but not a blanket authorization requirement. Defect 1: vague criterion. 'Risk of tension' gives police unlimited discretion and is not foreseeable; a protester cannot know what facts trigger refusal. Defect 2: overbreadth. A ten-person threshold catches small, peaceful gatherings and reverses the constitutional starting point, making assembly a privilege. Defect 3: no reasons and no effective review. A refusal without reasons prevents meaningful challenge and invites arbitrary decisions. Defect 4: less restrictive alternatives. Notification, police presence, traffic management, or narrow time-and-place conditions would protect order without prior permission. Application. The five-day rule and refusal power are not necessary or proportionate because the state can achieve the aim with less intrusion. Legal certainty requires accessible, precise rules, not a discretionary veto. The scheme therefore fails both tests, and the refusal is unlawful even if the aim is legitimate.

Immediate step. The police refusal is an individual administrative act. The lawyer should file an administrative claim in the administrative court seeking annulment and, in the same application, request interim relief so the gathering can proceed pending judgment. The court should assess irreparable harm to assembly rights, likelihood of success, and the public interest; a four-day deadline supports urgency. Normative act. The resolution itself is not an individual act. Constitutional review of a normative act belongs to the Constitutional Court, but the lawyer must verify the client's standing and whether the Law on the Constitutional Court permits a citizen petition or requires an authorized body to refer it. If direct standing is doubtful, the lawyer can ask the prosecutor to protest the resolution. Practical strategy. File the administrative claim and interim application first, publicize the refusal, and prepare a fallback indoor event. Do not wait for constitutional review, which cannot realistically finish before 10 September.