KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 15 B. Merits 1. Submissions by the parties 46. The applicant submitted that Stefanovskaya Square was the main square in the town of Syktyvkar, where historically many public events had been held. It was large and closed to traffic, and was therefore perfectly suitable for public events. In 2011 the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic had moved to the seventh floor of a building on that square; thereafter, the town administration had prohibited the holding of public events in Stefanovskaya Square altogether (see paragraphs 34 and 35 above). Referring to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 17 July 2007 (for a summary of the domestic law provisions, see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 254), the applicant argued that the perimeter of the zone in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic was to be determined on the basis of the land or urban planning register and had to be objectively justified by the aim of ensuring the normal functioning of that court. The Syktyvkar Town Administration’s decree determining the perimeter of the zone in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic (see paragraph 35 above) did not meet those criteria, in particular because it provided for a zone covering a total area of about 51,800 sq. m comprising several plots and parts of plots of land registered separately in the urban planning register. Such a large perimeter was not necessary to ensure the normal functioning of that court, which occupied several offices on the seventh floor of an office building. Nor was it necessary to prohibit the holding of public events in the vicinity of the court during periods when it was not in session, as well as on weekends and public holidays. The applicant submitted a list of twenty festive public events held in Stefanovskaya Square in 2016, showing that the prohibition was not always complied with. 47. The applicant further submitted that the location chosen by him had been near, rather than within, Stefanovskaya Square; the prohibition established by section 5 of Komi Republic Law no. 91-RZ (see paragraph 34 above), on which the town administration had relied, had not therefore been applicable. Indeed, the domestic courts had relied on the town administration’s decree no. 9/3483 (see paragraph 35 above), rather than on that provision. That decree, however, was defective for the reasons described in paragraph 46 above. The location chosen by the applicant had been 160 m away from the perimeter of the zone in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic, as it should have been determined pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 17 July 2007. Lastly, the specially designated locations for holding public events proposed by the town administration as an alternative to the location chosen by the applicant had been remote and desolate, and therefore unsuitable.