GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT no. 10810/15, § 49, 31 January 2017, and Ecodefence and Others v. Russia, nos. 9988/13 and 60 others, § 75, 14 June 2022). 46. The Government’s non-exhaustion objection must therefore be dismissed. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 47. The applicant complained that the administrative-offence proceedings against him had breached his rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, taking into account the general principles established in the context of Article 11 (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016). Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” A. Admissibility 48. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 49. The applicant submitted that his conviction for failure to submit a prior notification for his solo demonstration had been unlawful. The cardboard figure of Mr Kotov had been made up of one piece of cardboard and could not therefore be considered a “quickly (de)assembled object”; as such, he had not been required to notify the authorities of his solo demonstration. In any event, the applicable legal provisions did not meet the “quality of law” requirement. Furthermore, the domestic authorities had showed zero tolerance towards his peaceful solo demonstration. His arrest several days after the demonstration had not been justified by any pressing social need. The domestic authorities had not made any assessment of the 18