KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 17 aims under paragraph 2 of Article 11, and was “necessary in a democratic society” for the achievement of the aim or aims in question (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 102, ECHR 2015). 51. The Court notes that the domestic authorities relied on two legal provisions prohibiting public events at the location chosen by the applicant: while the town administration relied on a regional law prohibiting public events in Stefanovskaya Square in Syktyvkar (see paragraphs 9 and 34 above), the domestic courts referred to the town administration’s decree delimiting the perimeter of the zone in the immediate vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic (see paragraphs 17 and 35 above), where the holding of public events was prohibited by section 8 of the Public Events Act (see, for a summary of the domestic law, Lashmankin and Others, cited above, §§ 223-25). 52. As regards the domestic courts’ finding that the location chosen by the applicant had been in the immediate vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic, the Court has already found that the general ban under section 8 of the Public Events Act on holding public events in the vicinity of court buildings is incompatible with Article 11 § 2, taking into account its absolute nature coupled with the local executive authorities’ wide discretion in determining what is considered to be “in the immediate vicinity” (see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, §§ 431-42). The Court does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The refusal to approve the location chosen by the applicant for his public event by reference to the fact that it was to be held in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court of the Komi Republic could not, therefore, be regarded as being “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. 53. As regards the town administration’s reference to a regional law prohibiting public events in Stefanovskaya Square, the main square in Syktyvkar, the Court notes that since 2012 the Public Events Act allows the regional legislatures to designate other locations – in addition to the locations mentioned in section 8 of the Public Events Act – where public events are prohibited if they might interfere with the normal functioning of public utility services, transport, social or communications services, or hinder the passage of pedestrians or vehicles or the access of citizens to residential buildings, transport or social facilities (see, for a summary of the domestic law provisions, Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 247). The Court has already found that those reasons, although relevant, are not in themselves sufficient to justify a proposal to change the location of a public event (see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, §§ 421 and 423). This finding applies a fortiori to a general ban on holding public events at a certain location by reference to those reasons. 54. The Court reiterates in this connection that a State can, consistently with the Convention, adopt general measures which apply to pre-defined