7 April, 2025

The Bishkek City Court and the Supreme Court of the KR refuse to consider complaints about the illegal actions of the Pervomaisky District Municipal Administration and the Pervomaisky District Department of Internal Affairs of Bishkek restricting the right of citizens to freedom of peaceful assembly.

Bir Duino KR has studied the negative practice of the Pervomaisky District Municipality, which has been making illegal decisions over the past few years to restrict peaceful assemblies in the Pervomaisky district of Bishkek, including the latest, No. 01- 16-770 dated 27 December 2024 for the period from 1 January to 31 March, 2025. However, the Pervomaisky District Court recognized these decisions as legitimate, violating the constitutional rights of citizens to peaceful rallies and demonstrations, and the Law of the KR on Peaceful Assemblies[i].

On 3 April 2025, the Supreme Court of the KR definitively refused the PA "Bir Duino - Kyrgyzstan" (and in fact, any other interested party) to restore the time limits for filing an appeal against the decision of the Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek dated 26 March 2025, recognizing as legitimate the decision of the Pervomaisky District Municipal Administration "On the restriction of places of peaceful assembly" No. 01-16/602 dated 26 March 2025.

It should be noted that earlier, on 18 March 2025, the PA "Bir Duino - Kyrgyzstan" submitted applications to the executive authorities of Bishkek represented by the Pervomaisky District Municipal Administration and the Pervomaisky District Department of Internal Affairs, asking the executive authorities to comply with a number of requirements of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies, with a request to involve us in the consideration of the case on possible restriction of peaceful assemblies. We requested that if a court decision is made to ban or restrict the assembly, it be communicated to the PA "Bir Duino - Kyrgyzstan" in writing within 24 hours and a copy of the decision be issued. However, our application was illegally ignored by the Municipal Administration.

A copy of the appealed act was necessary in order to comply with the requirements of article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure and legitimately indicate the appealed decision, present the arguments of the complaint as counterarguments to the motives of the court that issued it, and legitimately formulate the request of the complaint itself. As a result of the illegal inaction of the municipality, the organization missed the deadline for filing a complaint with the Bishkek City Court for objective reasons.

Therefore, the experts of the PA "Bir Duino - Kyrgyzstan" filed an application for reinstatement of the missed deadline for appeal (for a valid and objective reason) to the Bishkek City Court. On 1 April, the City Court considered the application. The complaint was considered on its merits, the parties were heard, and a debate took place. However, as a result, the court only concluded that our organization had missed the deadline for filing an appeal.

The main conclusions of the Bishkek City Court are as follows:

The court considers it unjustifiable to miss the deadline for filing a complaint, while not a word is said about our filing a preliminary request to involve us in the consideration of the decision on the restriction of peaceful assemblies.

No assessment has been given to the illegal inaction of the Municipal Administration, which did not provide access to the court decision in writing within the time limits prescribed by law.

We demanded that they stop the negative practice when the public learns about the decisions taken to ban or restrict peaceful assemblies post factum from the media, and the Municipal Administration creates special conditions under which it becomes extremely difficult or impossible to appeal such decisions in court.

In its decision, the court notes without any legal justification that the decision to restrict the place of peaceful assembly is public and is communicated to citizens through the media or orally. It refers to the news portals AKIPress and 24.KG, which posted information about the appealed court decision on 27 March, 2025 at 08:51 and 11:49. However, the court did not take into account that these news reports do not contain the full text of the court decision necessary for the preparation of a legally motivated appeal.

Here are the main arguments of the organization in favor of the illegality of the municipality's decision to restrict peaceful assemblies:

According to part 2 of Article 14 of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies, territorial divisions of internal affairs bodies and local self-government bodies governing the territories where meetings are held also have the right to decide regarding restrictions on the time, place or route of movement or regarding prohibition only in relation to the meeting and if there are grounds provided for by this Law.

According to the court's decision, it was made not in relation to a specific ongoing meeting (in the singular), but in relation to an indefinite number of peaceful assemblies that may be initiated or organized by interested parties in the future within three months as per the court's decision. This is a violation of the specified provisions of the law.

As to the grounds on which holding a peaceful assembly (a certain one) may be restricted, according to part 1 of Article 15 of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies, "a decision to restrict an assembly in terms of time, venue, or route of movement is made for the duration of circumstances when there is a real threat to the safety of participants in the assembly and other citizens in the specified locations. State bodies and local government bodies are obliged to inform the organizers and participants of the assembly about the reasons for the restriction of the assembly."

However, according to the court's decision, the Municipal Administration has not provided any actually confirmed and reliable data that may allow us to judge that from 1 April to 30 June, 2025 (inclusive), for example, it is unsafe for our citizens and guests of the city to be in Ala–Too Square. No such data or evidence has been provided. There are only certain assumptions and suspicions of representatives of local authorities and subjective (and anonymous) judgments of individual citizens and the Municipal Administration itself.

If we follow the logic of the court's decision, then if there was a real threat to the safety of citizens on the territory of Ala-Too Square (and in other places defined in the court's decision), then it would have to be cordoned off and appropriate emergency and contingency measures would have to be taken. However, as practice shows, our citizens absolutely peacefully walk and spend their time on Ala-Too square.

Moreover, the inconsistency of the court's decision lies in the fact that the alleged "threat to the safety" of citizens somehow temporarily disappears or is eliminated during state and municipal events on Ala-Too square. However, after the events organized by the authorities, the "security threat" immediately occurs again. And so it goes from 1 April to 30 June, 2025 (inclusive).

We would like to note a number of violations by the Pervomaisky District Administration of the provisions of the Law on the Basics of Administrative Activity and Administrative Procedures (hereinafter referred to as the Law):

According to paragraph 6 of Article 4, paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 49, and paragraph 4 of Article 50 of the Law, the administrative act of the Municipal Administration No. 01-16/602 dated 26 March 2025 is burdensome, restricting the right to peaceful assembly.

As a result, the administrative act of the Municipal Administration contradicts a number of requirements of the Law:

1)     it does not have an individualized and specific character (subparagraph A of paragraph 6, Article 4 of the Law);

2)     it does not contain the surname, first name and patronymic name of the person to whom the administrative act is addressed; the full name of the legal entity (paragraph 3, part 4 of Article 50 of the Law);

3)     it does not set a time limit for appealing an act or a body where this act can be appealed (paragraph 8, part 4 of Article 50 of the Law).

Therefore, based on the provisions of paragraph 2, part 2 of Article 55 of the Law, an administrative act of the Municipal Administration is void, for the reason and on the basis that it is such, if it is not clear from the act to which person it is addressed.

Based on the ruling of the court of appeal dated 1 April, 2025 and the decision of the cassation instance dated 3 April, 2025, the experts of the PA “Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan” conclude that the courts applied a formal approach when considering complaints and applications of the organization, focusing on setting deadlines for appealing the decision of the court of first instance, in order to refuse to make a decision and assessment of the actions of the executive authorities on the merits and on the basis of the requirements of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies. Thus, the courts did not ensure the realization of the right to judicial protection of human and civil rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic in a legal and democratic state.

Lawyers and human rights defenders of Bir Duino-Kyrgyzstan draw the attention of the country's top leadership and key decision makers to the systemic violations of citizens' rights to peaceful assembly and gatherings when there are new risks, conflicts and disasters in the world, Central Asia, especially in the KR, which must be prevented through respect for human rights and freedoms, as well as the rule of law and ensuring equal access to fair justice[ii].

Together with its partners and solidarity networks, Bir Duino will continue to defend the fundamental right of citizens to peaceful assembly and demonstrations, demanding that the rule of law be restored and that the Kyrgyz Republic fulfill its international obligations.

Should you have any questions, please, contact Timur Arykov, lawyer at Bir Duino,

tel.: +996770341720, e-mail: birduinokyrgyzstan@gmail.com