KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 19 freedom of assembly. It has not therefore been shown that the general ban on holding public events in Stefanovskaya Square has been the subject of an exacting parliamentary and judicial review (compare Animal Defenders International, cited above, §§ 108 and 114-17). 57. It follows that the Government have not adduced relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the general ban on holding public events in Stefanovskaya Square in Syktyvkar. 58. In view of the above, the Court considers that the refusal to approve the location of the applicant’s public event by reference to the general ban on holding public events in the vicinity of court buildings or by reference to the ban, established by a regional law, on holding public events in Stefanovskaya Square in Syktyvkar, without any consideration to the specific circumstances of the case, could not therefore be regarded as being “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. 59. There has therefore been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 11 60. The applicant complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy against the alleged violation of his freedom of assembly. Article 13 of the Convention reads: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” A. Admissibility 61. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. Submissions by the parties 62. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts had failed to protect his right to freedom of assembly. The Russian courts were not required by law to examine the issues of “proportionality” and “necessity in a democratic society” when examining on judicial review a complaint about a