Under the mask of the governor

According to the head of St. Petersburg Beglov, pickets and rallies, closed from a Covid of the face interfere

Almost a year ago - March 13, 2020 - the St. Petersburg government adopted its "anticoronavirus" decree No. 121, in which, among other things, it was forbidden to hold public actions.

Since then, the decision has changed many times - it has been tightened, then softened, depending on the epidemic situation - but the indicated ban was invariably preserved.

And all this time in St. Petersburg, the police, referring to it, delayed the participants in public actions, including even single pickets that do not require approvals.

In the last month, the incidence in the city has declined - and the vast majority of restrictions were now removed. In particular, you can already legally collect up to 25 thousand people at the stadium (with no more than 75 percent filling). But it is still impossible to hold public actions.

In early February, after the next weakening of restrictions (and after two mass shares, on which citizens were detained and fined precisely for violating the “anti -icing prohibitions), I sent an appeal to the governor of St. Petersburg, urging the changes to the government decree. And cancel the ban on public actions, provided that their participants will use the protective equipment - masks and respirators.

The governor refused me, saying that this is impossible, because ... under the legislation on rallies, the participants of the shares cannot be hidden. And that, they say, the draft law is currently being considered in the State Duma, according to which participants in public actions will be able to use personal protective equipment if an increased readiness or emergency is introduced.

There is really a requirement to hide persons in the legislation on rallies. And there is a draft law too. But the links to them in this case show the legal illiteracy of those who (most likely, this is the Committee on Law, Law and Order and Security) was prepared by the answer that came to me.

The fact is that (lawyer Viktor Vorobyov immediately drew attention to this) there are two decisions - the constitutional and supreme courts - which are now directly establishing that

Using public actions for medical reasons, protective masks is not a way of intentional concealment of persons of participants, which is prohibited by the Law on rallies.

We quote literally.

Clause 33 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06.26.2018 No. 28 “On some issues arising from the courts in the consideration of administrative cases and cases of administrative offenses related to the application of legislation on public events”:

“The concealment by the participants of the public event of their person (its part), including by using masks, masked means, other items, can be the objective side of the composition of the administrative offense, the responsibility for which is established by part 5 of Article 20.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, if these items are used precisely in order to difficulty determining their personalities. To establish the availability of such a goal, judges should take into account the methods and means of masking, the response of participants in the public event to the comments of authorized persons and the consequences, including from the point of view of ensuring security and public order. Moreover, the circumstances on the basis of which the judge came to the conclusion that the participant in the public event of the above goal should be reflected in the decision in the case of an administrative offense. ”

In other words, the purpose of putting the mask should be precisely the difficulty of establishing the personality of the participant in the public event (and not to prevent the spread of coronaviral infection), and the presence of this goal should be then proved by the court.

But even more clearly everything is spelled out in the definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 7, 2016 No. 1428-O.

“When assessing the provision of paragraph 1 of part 4 of Article 6 of the Federal Law“ On Meetings, Raits, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets ”, it is important to take into account that the concealment by the participants of the public event of their person (its part) may be caused by various considerations that are not necessarily related to intentions to complicate the establishment of personality; The ban on the use of funds specially intended for the difficulty of establishing a personality (masks, balaclavs, stockings, etc.) does not in itself prevent the use of objects (things), objectively with its consequence, is determined by weather (scarves, scarves, hoods, etc.), medical (bandages, gauze dressings, responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and responders and respondents T.P.) or other similar reasons. ”

In other words, if the wearing of masks is necessary for medical reasons (namely, such reasons take place during an epidemic of coronavirus), it should not be considered as a way prohibited by the Law on Raits to “difficult to establish personality” of a public campaign.

Therefore, there is no conflict between the obligation to wear medical masks and the duty not to hide a face at a rally.

Further - only two hypotheses.

First: in Smolny everyone knows this, but pretend that they do not know.

Then, with his answer, the governor simply misleads the townspeople.

The second: in Smolny they simply did not read the mentioned decisions of the senior courts (and why?), Believing that it is enough to read the law on rallies.

Then there is a reasonable doubt about the legal qualifications of the administration. If anything, I am ready to help with the organization of their training and find lawyers for consultations.

Well, I will send another appeal to the governor - indicating the unsatisfactory answer and re -proposal to remove the ban.