Problems and possible solutions to enforcement of freedom of assembly

Straipsnyje analizuojamas susirinkimo laisvės įgyvendinimas, atkreipiamas dėmesys į kilusių ginčų nagrinėjimo teisinio reglamentavimo ydingumą, apžvelgiamas susirinkimo laisvės ribojimo galimumas. Įrodinėjama, kad būtent demokratinė visuomenė turi nuspręsti, ar priimti skleidžiamas idėjas ir reiškiamas nuomones taikių susirinkimų metu, ar priimti jas vėliau, ar apskritai atmesti. Susirinkimų laisvės „mechaniškas“ ribojimas nėra veiksminga priemonė, todėl siūloma per teisinį švietimą visuomenei aiškinti agresyvių, negatyvių, ksenofobiškai ar antisemitiškai nusiteikusių žmonių viešai reiškiamų idėjų žalingumą, atskleidžiant jų tikruosius ketinimus, kad jie netrauktų ir neburtų aplink save gana didelės visuomenės dalies. Straipsnyje pabrėžiama, kad būtinas veiksmingas naudojimosi taikių susirinkimų teise užtikrinimas. Nurodoma, kad ginčo dėl teisės organizuoti taikų susirinkimą išsprendimas po susirinkimo datos yra beprasmis, paneigiantis susirinkimo teisės socialinį reikšmingumą, todėl daroma išvada, jog, galiojant nustatytam teisiniam reguliavimui, pagal kurį ginčas dėl atsisakymo išduoti pažymėjimą turi būti nagrinėjamas apylinkių teismuose, sprendžiant pagal ginčo išsprendimo pasekmes laikytina, kad skundas dėl susirinkimo teisės įgyvendinimo nagrinėtinas CPK XXXIX skyriuje nustatyta tvarka, t. y. taikomas supaprastintas procesas nagrinėjant bylas ypatingąja teisena, leidžiantis užtikrinti teisių gintį laiku. Straipsnyje siūloma skundo dėl atsisakymo išduoti pažymėjimą dėl suderintos susirinkimo vietos, laiko ir formos nagrinėjamą priskirti administraciniams teismams.The article analyses enforcement of freedom of assembly, draws attention to faults of legal regulation of dispute settlement, and revises a possibility of restriction of freedom of assembly. The authors provide evidence that restriction of freedom of assembly by refusing to grant permission to hold a peaceful assembly, is not an effective measure, therefore, it is suggested to educate the public on legal issues in order to enlighten the society about detrimental effect of publicly expressed ideas that provoke national or racial discord, to disclose actual intentions of people who instigate aggression, force and violence so that they do not attract and rally a sufficiently large part of the public. People usually believe that the society enjoys freedom of knowledge and the right to obtain all information, as well as all news that originate and spread across the market, as it creates a pre-requisite for strengthening the best and most useful culture projects resulting in the development of culture and, alongside, the law. The conclusion reached in the article is that in fact enforcement of the freedom of assembly becomes more difficult because the commissions established by municipalities for approving events (assembly) refuse issuing certificates proving the permission to organise a meeting. The refusal is typically based on a technical reason and the wording is a mere extract from the law. In case of failure to submit good reason of the decision, the court quite often supports the claim of the plaintiffs and recognises that there was no reason to refuse issuing the certificate. However, the right to organise a meeting remains unenforced because the municipal commission may render a decision not to issue the certificate only 48 hours prior to the meeting. The court must examine such a petition within 3 days at the latest, and after the judicial examination of the petition the support of the petition to a greater extent is related to the recognition of the fact of infringement of the freedom of assembly rather than assistance in its enforcement. The authors state that a period during which the right to organise a peaceful meeting may be implemented is one of the fundamental conditions of protection of human rights. The authors also imply that a dispute concerning the refusal to issue a certificate on the approved place, time and form of the meeting may be examined in court on the grounds stipulated in Chapter XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e. in one of the forms of summary procedure aimed at ensuring a more rapid examination of particular type of disputes and timely protection of rights. Moreover, the article provides grounds for the attitude that the way of solving disputes as entrenched in the Law on Meetings is to be treated as a fault of legal technique of the law-making which provides reasons for controversial enforcement and interpretation of the law, thus creating obstacles for a person to enjoy his right. According to the legal logic, petitions concerning refusal to issue a certificate on approved place, time and form of the meeting should be examined in administrative court