6 KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT argument that it was impossible to hold the event was hypothetical and did not refer to any valid reasons explaining why the locations proposed by [the town administration] were incompatible with the public event’s purposes sought by the organisers and its social and political significance. The [district] court correctly held in the judgment that in accordance with Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the enjoyment of one’s rights and freedoms must not breach the rights and freedoms of others. Therefore, the holding of a public event by some citizens must not create a situation where other citizens are arbitrarily deprived of a possibility to enjoy their rights in accordance with the established order and traditions. There were therefore objective and sufficient reasons – explaining why it was impossible to approve the location of the public event chosen by the organisers – for the proposal to change the location with the aim of ensuring a balance between the rights of the organisers and those of third persons. [The town administration] did not omit to examine the request for approval of the location of the public event and gave its reply to the complainant within the statutory time-limit. The reply contained reasons explaining why it was impossible to hold the public event at the chosen location and a well-reasoned proposal to change the location. In the court’s opinion, the complainant’s constitutional rights and interests were respected and there was no violation of Article 11 of [the Convention] guaranteeing freedom of assembly, or of [the Public Events Act]. The law does not guarantee the organiser of a public event an unconditional right to hold a public event at the location which he considers the most relevant to its political and social significance. [The town administration] fulfilled its statutory obligation to propose an alternative location for the public event that was compatible with its purposes. The locations proposed were an adequate alternative to the chosen location and were in keeping with its purposes. The [district] court therefore correctly rejected the complaint. The arguments set out in the appeal submissions are limited to a statement that the contested decision of [the town administration] refusing to approve the location chosen for the public event in Stefanovskaya Square had breached the complainant’s rights to freedom of assembly, expression, conscience and religion. These arguments are based on an incorrect assessment of the facts of the case and an incorrect interpretation of the applicable legal provisions. They do not therefore warrant the quashing of the [district] court’s judgment ... The contested decision of [the town administration] was in accordance with [the Public Events Act], was made within the municipal authorities’ powers and was in the interests of ensuring public order, with the aim of preventing disorder, protecting health and morality, and safeguarding the rights and freedoms of others. It did not therefore breach the complainant’s rights.” 20. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. He repeated his previous arguments and added that public events were regularly held at the crossroads of Lenin and Kommunisticheskaya streets. 21. On 19 July 2016 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic refused to refer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Presidium of that