Published on 13 April 2026
 
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos. 9127/25 and 14517/25
Miroslavs MITROFANOVS against Latvia
and Inna DJERI against Latvia
lodged on 17 March 2025 and 8 May 2025 respectively
communicated on 26 March 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities refused to authorise public assemblies that they wished to hold on 28 May and 22 August 2022 (application no. 9127/25) and on 13 May 2022 (application no. 14517/25).
At the material time, the first applicant (application no. 9127/25) was a co-chairman of a political party and the second applicant (application no. 14517/25) was its member. They were elected members of the Riga City Council. They applied for authorisations to hold public assemblies, stating that their aim was, among others, to protest against the demolition of a monument. Their applications were refused.
By final decisions of 25 November 2024 (case no. A420209922) and 28 December 2024 (case no. A420247322) in respect of the first applicant (application no. 9127/25) and 6 March 2025 (case no. 420202922) in respect of the second applicant (application no. 14517/25), the applicants’ complaints about the refusals to authorise the public assemblies were dismissed by the Senate of the Supreme Court.
The applicants rely on Article 11 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
 
 
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
 
2.  If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did it pursue a “legitimate aim”; did it correspond to a “pressing social need”; was it proportionate to the legitimate aim; and were the reasons adduced by the national authorities “relevant and sufficient” (see Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia, nos. 2623/16 and 2299/16, §§ 100-04, 10 July 2025)?
 
3.  Have the applicants suffered discrimination, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 11, as alleged by them?
 
 
 
APPENDIX
List of applications
 
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
1.
9127/25
Mitrofanovs
v. Latvia
17/03/2025
Miroslavs MITROFANOVS
1966
Riga
Latvian
2.
14517/25
Djeri v. Latvia
08/05/2025
Inna DJERI
1978
Jūrmala
Latvian