On October 4 of this year, public organisation Lithuanian Gay League submitted a notification to Vilnius City Municipality regarding organisation of the We Are for All Colours of the Rainbow public event planned to be held in Rotušės Square in Vilnius on October 25, 2007 at 6.00 p.m. In its notification, the League indicated the form and content of the meeting, the date, the beginning and end time, place of the meeting, the planned number of participants, and its wishes regarding assurance of public order by the police.

On October 9, 2007, the League received from the Municipality a letter of October 5, 2007 “Regarding permission to hold the public event,” in which it explained that at present construction works are underway in Rotušės Square and that the works contractor   UAB Vilniaus Kapitalinė Statyba, pursuant to the provisions of sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 5 of article 15 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Construction, refused to agree upon the above-mentioned meeting at the construction site. By the above-mentioned letter, the Municipality also informed the League that pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 10 of Law on Meetings proposals to change the place or time of the meeting would be made.

On October 15, 2007, the League received from the Municipality resolution of October 9, 2007 “Regarding permission to hold the public event,” by which it refused to issue a certificate regarding the agreed-upon place, time and form of the meeting. Disagreeing with the above-mentioned resolution, on October 19, 2007, the League went to Vilnius 1st District Court demanding annulment of the above-mentioned resolution of the Municipality due to its unreasonableness and ungrounded nature violating the right to hold peaceful unarmed meetings as stipulated in the Constitution, the people’s equality (non-discrimination) principle as stipulated in the Constitution, the human rights and freedoms asserted in international documents on the protection of human rights; non-complying with the form of resolutions of this nature as set in the Law on Meetings; and adopted in violation of the requirements set in the Law on Public Administration.

Main legal arguments regarding reasonableness of the Municipality’s refusal to grant permission to hold the public event

As can be seen from the resolution being appealed, Vilnius City Municipality Administration has grounded its refusal to issue a certificate regarding the agreed-upon place, time and form of the meeting on the following:

1.            Construction works being carried out in Rotušės Square;

2.            The League’s refusal to hold the meeting in an enclosed space;

3.            The fact that information on the planned opposing acts in relation to the event planned to be held by VšĮ Pirmoji Kava on May 25, 2007 was received, and that it was reasonable to believe that such opposing acts would take place in relation to the event planned to be held on October 25, 2007.

Paragraph 1 of article 10 of Law on Meetings provides that if, when considering a notification, certain circumstances are established due to which the meeting may not be organised in the form, place or at the time stated in the notification, then proposals regarding different forms, place, and time of the meeting may be presented and considered only in presence of the organisers of the meeting in question.

As can be seen from the letter of the Municipality of October 5, 2007, when considering the League’s notification regarding the planned public event on October 5, 2007, the Municipality voiced its opinion only regarding unacceptability of the place of the planned public event. The Municipality did not have any comments on the form, time, assurance of safety or other circumstances concerning organisation of the event. Such actions of the Municipality enabled to reasonably believe that only the place of the planned event would be questioned during the next stage of consideration of the notification. Therefore, when participating in the discussions on October 9, 2007, representatives of the League first of all reasonably aimed at clarifying the reasons for refusal to grant permission to hold the event in Rotušės Square in Vilnius and receiving proofs grounding such a refusal. Neither in its letter of October 5, 2007, nor during the discussions held on October 9, 2007 did the Municipality present to the League any proofs confirming the stated fact, i.e. the refusal of UAB Vilniaus Kapitalinė Statyba to agree upon holding the public event. Furthermore, proofs confirming the construction works being actually carried out at the planned place of the meeting have not been provided either.

The Republic of Lithuania Law on Construction (March 19, 1996, No. I-1240, version of December 21, 2006) stipulates the main requirements for all structures being constructed, reconstructed and repaired in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania; the procedure for construction technical regulation, construction research, structure design works, new structure construction, reconstruction, repairs, recognition of such structures as suitable for use, structure use and maintenance, demolition and supervision of all of the above-mentioned works; and the principles of activity in this area of construction participants, public administration entities, engineering network and communication network owners (or users), and other legal and natural persons. The scope of the above-mentioned legal act includes legal relations in the construction field; therefore, these specific legal norms may not be used as a ground in order to deny the conditions for assurance of the constitutional right to hold peaceful unarmed meetings. Therefore, sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 5 of article 15 of Law on Construction referred to by the Municipality may not in itself constitute the basis for refusal to agree upon a specific place for organisation of a meeting. A refusal to agree upon a specific place for organisation of a meeting must be linked to specific actual circumstances substantiated by relevant proofs.

It should be noted that when considering the notification, the League did not object to changing the place of the meeting, agreeing that after the Municipality substantiates the circumstances related to the impossibility of holding the meeting in Rotušės Square it would consider other proposed places for organisation of the meeting. The League, seeking to discuss the possible places for the meeting, has in good will participated in the October 9, 2007 meeting; however, during the said meeting the Municipality has not proposed any possible alternatives.

Paragraph 1 of article 6 of Law on Meetings stipulates that the Law in question sets the conditions and procedure for organisation of meetings in public places, i.e. city, town streets, squares, parks, public gardens and other public places, and public-use buildings. Paragraph 1 of article 3 of the Law provides that meeting organisers may hold various meetings such as gatherings, pickets, demonstrations, processions, various marches, and other peaceful unarmed meetings. Article 2 of the above-mentioned Law lists the meetings, the organisation of which is not regulated in accordance with the procedure set in the Republic of Lithuania Law on Meetings. Paragraph 7 of article 2 provides that the Law in question does not regulate the meetings, which are organised by private persons for entertainment, festivities, and other private purposes at non-public common-use places. Thus it is obvious that the Republic of Lithuania Law on Meetings regulates meetings of various nature, which are held in public spaces, and does not set any requirements for the events of private nature held in enclosed spaces.

It can be seen from the notification about organisation of the meeting presented by the League on October 4, 2007 that the League informs the Municipality in the informational manner provided for in the Republic of Lithuania Law on Meetings about organisation of a public event regulated by the said Law. It should be noted that the Law does not provide for the informational procedure for the events organised at non-public places (clubs, theatres, concert halls and similar), thus there is no need to apply for arrangement of such events. Therefore, the Municipality’s proposal to hold the planned event only in an enclosed space is not understandable. Such a proposal may not be considered an alternative proposal regarding the place of the meeting, because pursuant to the provisions of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Meetings enclosed spaces may not be categorised as the possible meeting places, and are not subject to the requirements set by the Law for the form of the meeting. Having unreasonably refused to approve the meeting place chosen by the League and having not proposed an alternative meeting place without even considering the alternatives, the Municipality violated the provisions of article 10 of the Law on Meetings and unreasonably grounded on the above-mentioned unlawful actions its refusal to issue a certificate regarding the agreed-upon place, time and form of the meeting.