KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 13 within two months by the Supreme Court, if not otherwise provided for by this Code for certain categories of cases (Article 226 § 1). THE LAW I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 38. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 39. The applicant complained about the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location of his public event. He relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaint under Article 11, interpreted where appropriate in the light of Article 10 (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 363-65). Article 11 reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.” A. Admissibility 40. The Court observes that the Government did not raise the issue of the applicant’s compliance with the six-month rule. It has previously found that the application of that rule should not be set aside solely because the Government have not made a preliminary objection based on it (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III, and Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I). The Court therefore considers it appropriate to address this issue in the present case. 41. In its judgment in the case of Alekseyev v. Russia (nos. 4916/07 and 2 others, § 99, 21 October 2010) the Court found that Russian law, as in force at the material time, did not provide for a preventive remedy, and it found a violation of Article 13 on that ground. Subsequently, in the case of