6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Moscow. At the material time the applicant was a district councillor. 7.  On 21 August 2003 the non-governmental organisation “City-wide public council for the protection of citizens' rights in town planning and for the protection of the environment” decided to hold an assembly of Krylatskoye district residents at the Zashchitnikov Neba Square in Moscow. The purposes of the assembly were:
(1)  to protest against the Moscow mayor's failure to respond to the resolution of the assembly held in May 2003;
(2)  to protest against the planned construction of several luxurious blocks of flats in the place of facilities for sports and children;
(3)  to cast a vote of no confidence in the city authorities and call for their resignation;
(4)  to discuss matters of local self-governance. 8.  On 25 August 2003 the applicant, together with three other co-organisers of the assembly, informed the Prefecture of the Western Administrative District of Moscow – the residential district of Krylatskoye being in its jurisdiction – of the date, time, place and purposes of the assembly. The assembly was scheduled to take place from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. on Thursday, 4 September 2003, with the participation of about a hundred persons. 9.  On 29 August 2003 the prefect of the Western Administrative District of Moscow issued a decision to accept the notice and instructed the police to ensure public safety during the assembly. 10.  The applicant and co-organisers informed residents of the Krylatskoye district about the planned assembly by way of bill-posting. 11.  On 3 September 2003 the prefect cancelled his previous decision of 29 August 2003 “in connection with the operative information of law-enforcement authorities about an expected outbreak of terrorist activities in the Krylatskoye district and with a view to ensuring the safety of the district's residents”. The police were instructed “to take measures to prevent the assembly planned for 4 September 2003 at the Zashchitnikov Neba Square from being held”. 12.  On 4 September 2003 a few dozen residents gathered on the Zashchitnikov Neba Square and the applicant was among them. No loud speakers were deployed and no attempts were made to start a general discussion. Nevertheless, the police dispersed the crowd by force. 13.  On 5, 6 and 7 September 2003 (Friday to Sunday) the “Day of the City” was celebrated throughout Moscow. The programme for the festivities had been approved by the Moscow Government's resolution of 12 August 2003 and included sixty-one events. The events – such as the “World-wide Tea Festival”, the opening ceremony, “Parade of the Festivals”, the European champions' road running cup, the Moscow cup of the automobile all-round competition, the children's artistic and sport performance, sound and light show, students' parade, and many others – took place in major public thoroughfares. The applicant submitted media reports showing that no scheduled events had been cancelled and that the public festivities had been attended by thousands of people. 14.  The applicant left the Zashchitnikov Neba Square in a private car at about 8 p.m. At a nearby crossing the police blocked his car and, holding the driver at gun-point, took the applicant out of the car by force and escorted him to Krylatskoye district police station (ОВД района «Крылатское»). 15.  According to the administrative-arrest record of 4 September 2003, the applicant was arrested for refusing to comply with a lawful order of the police. 16.  Following the applicant's complaints about unlawful police actions, the Kuntsevskiy District Prosecutor interviewed the officers who had apprehended the applicant. Captain F., Officer D. and the driver, L., stated that they had been present at the meeting site since 6 p.m. At 8 p.m., when people were beginning to leave, they had arrested the applicant and taken him to the police station “for clarification of facts, namely the [legal] ground for holding a public assembly”. Mr N., who had been the duty officer at the police station, testified that at 8 p.m. the head of the police station had told him to prepare a report on an administrative offence of disobedience of police orders committed by Mr Makhmudov, who had been “detained for conducting an unauthorised meeting”. 17.  At the police station the applicant was placed in a cell where he remained until he was brought before a judge on the following day (see below). The cell was dirty and covered with spittle; the applicant was not given any food or drink. 18.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow. He was charged with disobeying lawful police orders and with organising an unauthorised assembly, these being administrative offences under Articles 19.3 and 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences. The two charges were examined separately. 19.  Examining the charge of disobedience, the judge found as follows:
“During the preparation and examination of the administrative case a number of breaches of the Code of Administrative Offences have been revealed. These breaches are the grounds for remitting the file to the head of the police station...
It is not clear from the case material what the offender's stance is with regard to the offence imputed to him; it appears from his statement that he has not committed any offence; however, in breach of Article 28.2 of the Code, the report does not list witnesses who could confirm the guilt of the offender; nor does it refer to other evidence confirming the offending acts or disobedience of police orders. Besides, it transpires from the decision on the institution of administrative proceedings and the opening of an administrative inquiry that on 5 September 2003 an administrative inquiry was ordered, but no such inquiry has actually been carried out as the file does not contain any depositions or other additional material obtained by such an inquiry. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 28.2 § 2 of the Code, a report on an administrative offence punishable by administrative arrest must be submitted for judicial examination immediately after its issuance. The administrative-arrest record concerning Mr Makhmudov had been prepared at 8 p.m. on 4 September 2003 but the material was submitted to the court only at 4.30 p.m. on 5 September 2003. Finally, the report contains no information as to who disobeyed the order, which police officer gave the order, where he gave the order (house number) or what kind of lawful order it was. The administrative-arrest record does not refer to Article 19.3 of the Code, although the breach of that provision was the basis for the applicant's arrest, or to the grounds for arrest; the record does not describe the detainee's clothing, absence or presence of bodily injuries, or to whom the information about the arrest was communicated. The information on the identity of attesting witnesses is incomplete, the attesting witness no. 2 did not sign the record, and witnesses for the defence have not been examined.” 20.  The judge returned the material to Krylatskoye police station for correction of the above defects and ordered the applicant's release at 5.10 p.m. 21.  On 7 October 2003 the police resubmitted the file to the court. 22.  On 29 October 2003 the Kuntsevskiy District Court found that the police had not made good the defects identified in the decision of 5 September 2003. The judge opined as follows:
“Mr Makhmudov unambiguously declared himself not guilty of the imputed offence and listed the following [nine] witnesses as being ready to testify that he had not committed any illegal actions against the police officers.
Taking into account that the available material is insufficient for finding Mr Makhmudov guilty of the administrative offence, that the court has taken measures to make good the defects in the material and for supplementing the evidence, and that those defects have not been remedied, the court considers that all the measures for proving Mr Makhmudov's guilt of the offence have been exhausted and – as the available evidence is not sufficient for a finding of guilt – finds it necessary to discontinue the proceedings”. 23.  Following the applicant's complaint that the legal basis for discontinuance of the proceedings had not been set out explicitly, on 2 December 2003 that decision was quashed by a higher court and the matter remitted for a new examination. 24.  On 19 December 2003 the Kuntsevskiy District Court ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings on the ground that the two-month prescription period had expired.
 2.  The charge of organising an unauthorised assembly 25.  Having examined the witnesses for the defence, who denied that the assembly had taken place, and the police officers who testified for the prosecution, the judge found that the applicant had been in breach of the established procedure for organising public assemblies. He had known that the prefect's decision of 29 August 2003 had been reversed but proceeded nevertheless with organisation of the assembly. The judge fined the applicant 1,000 Russian roubles (approximately 30 euros). 26.  On 6 July 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on an appeal by the applicant. 27.  The applicant challenged the prefect's decision of 3 September 2003 before the Kuntsevskiy District Court. He claimed that it had no legal basis, for Russian law did not permit cancellation of an authorised assembly, that it had been issued too late, on the eve of the assembly, and that it could not be founded on the “operative information”. He also sought a declaration that the police had unlawfully dispersed the assembly by force. 28.  The District Court asked Krylatskoye police station and the police command of the Western Administrative District of Moscow to produce the operative information which had been the basis for cancelling the authorisation. 29.  On 16 December 2003 Krylatskoye police station replied that there had been no such information in their possession. 30.  On 21 January 2004 the police command of the Western Administrative District replied that the material requested was classified as secret and for that reason could not be made available to the judge. 31.  The applicant asked the District Court to relinquish jurisdiction to the Moscow City Court which was competent, under national law, to hear cases involving confidential material. In an interim decision of 30 January 2004, the District Court refused the request, holding that the purpose of the proceedings was to establish whether or not the prefect's decision had been lawful rather than whether the prefect had or had not received information from the law-enforcement authorities. 32.  In a judgment of 30 January 2004, the District Court rejected the applicant's complaint. It established that the prefect had issued the contested decision further to a letter from the head of the police command of the Western Administrative District of 2 September 2003. In that letter, the police officer had asked the prefect to annul his decision of 29 August 2003 because the police command “had received, from various sources, information about potential terrorist attacks in Moscow, in places of mass gatherings”. The District Court continued as follows:
“In the court's view, the information of law-enforcement authorities about a possibility of subversive and terrorist attacks in Moscow in places of mass gatherings potentially presupposes the existing threat of violence not just against those citizens who intend to take part in the meeting but also against those citizens who had no intention of exercising their constitutional right to freedom of mass assemblies.
No evidence contradicting the information contained in the letter from the police command of the Western Administrative District to the prefect of the Western Administrative District has been produced before the court. The prefect's decision of 3 September 2003 was issued not in connection with the notice filed by the assembly organisers but in connection with a threat of increasing terrorist activities in the areas of mass gatherings, with a view to ensuring the security of the Krylatskoye District's residents...
Assessing the contested decision, the court finds that the prefect ... acted within the competence of the State body and [his actions] were appropriate to the presumed threat and complied with the Russian Constitution...”
As regards the forceful actions of the police in dispersing the meeting, the District Court found as follows:
“Taking into account the submissions by the claimant and his representatives, by the representatives of the police command of the Western Administrative District and of Krylatskoye police station, and having examined the video material submitted by the claimant and by Krylatskoye district council, the court finds that the actions of the Krylatskoye district police, which were aimed at preventing the mass action from taking place in connection with a real threat to life, health and security of citizens, were compatible with [the Moscow regulations on co-ordinated police action during mass assemblies] and the requirements of Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution which prohibits violations of rights and freedom of others, including during the exercise of the constitutional right to organise meetings, demonstrations, marches and pickets, having regard to the special conditions in the city of Moscow.” 33.  The applicant lodged an appeal. He submitted, in particular, that not a single public gathering organised by the Moscow mayor's office in the framework of the “Day of the City” had been cancelled as a result of a potential terrorist threat. He pointed out that the District Court had failed to supply a concrete legal basis for the prefect's decision to cancel the assembly permit. 34.  On 8 April 2004 the Moscow City Court, in summary fashion, rejected the applicant's appeal. 35.  On 13 November 2003 and 25 March 2004 the applicant lodged a civil claim for damages against Krylatskoye police station, the Moscow branch of the federal treasury and the Ministry of the Interior. He sought compensation for unlawful arrest and overnight detention in inhuman conditions, without sleep, food or drink. 36.  On 6 July 2004 the Kuntsevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim, finding that Article 1070 of the Civil Code did not provide for State officials' liability for non-pecuniary damage incurred through unlawful administrative arrest. 37.  On 14 April 2005 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed that decision and remitted the claim for a fresh examination. 38.  On 16 November 2005 the Kuntsevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim again. It noted that in cases of administrative arrest, State officials would be liable for non-pecuniary damage only if a fault on their part were proven. The applicant had been detained for 21 hours and 10 minutes for his failure to comply with a lawful police order. His arrest had been lawful because the Constitution only required a judicial decision if the relevant period of custody exceeded forty-eight hours. The administrative case against him had been discontinued on a formal ground – the expiry of the prescription period – rather than by a finding of his innocence. Having regard to these circumstances, the District Court found that the State officials had acted within their competence and powers and therefore could not be held liable for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. 39.  On 2 March 2006 the Moscow City Court, on an appeal by the applicant, upheld the judgment of 16 November 2006, endorsing, in summary fashion, the District Court's reasoning.