Press Release, 15.04.2026

Photo by Alexander Wainshtein, Kommersant

On 15 April, the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the ruling of the Kirovsky District Court, thereby endorsing the Irkutsk Mayor’s Office refusal to approve a Yabloko rally against Telegram blockings. The rally “For a Free Internet” had been due to take place on 1 March, but the Mayor’s Offcie refused to authorise the event, citing the “heightened interest” of citizens in the blocking of the messenger service and of the Internet more broadly. Grigory Gribenko, the leader of Irkutsk Yabloko, maintains that the Mayor’s Office refusal was unlawful and that the rulings of both courts were biased and legally unjustified.

The appeal to the Irkutsk Regional Court was filed by Grigory Gribenko, Chairman of the Yabloko regional branch in Irkutsk, who acted as the applicant for the 1 March rally. The appeal was prepared with the assistance of Alexander Kobrinsky, a lawyer and Deputy Chairman of St. Petersburg Yabloko. It should be noted that after initially agreeing to the “For a Free Internet” rally, the Irkutsk Mayor’s Office withdrew its approval, citing an unexpectedly large number of people wishing to attend. Officials claimed at the time that the organisers would be unable to guarantee the safety of all participants, notwithstanding that ensuring public safety was, in this case, the direct responsibility of the city administration and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Gribenko then brought proceedings before a court which, despite the evident absurdity of the officials’ position, ruled in favour of the Irkutsk Mayor’s Office.

In his appeal against the Kirovsky District Court ruling, Gribenko argued that the court had incorrectly identified the circumstances material to a proper examination of the case; that the court’s conclusions were not grounded in law; and that evidence submitted by the administrative respondent had been treated as having predetermined probative force. The appellant’s position is set out in detail in the appeal, with extensive references to Russian legislation, including Federal Law No. 54-FZ on public events and the opinion of the Constitutional Court.

The appeal also highlighted that the Irkutsk city administration had sought to impose on the rally organiser obligations concerning specialist anti-terrorism security measures — obligations that self-evidently require professional expertise, skills and resources, and that are, under Russian law, the responsibility of state authorities.

The crux of the matter is this: from the outset of its refusal, the Mayor’s Office emphasised that public interest in the rally among Irkutsk residents had been enormous, and therefore argued that the organiser was required not merely to anticipate the number of participants but also to guarantee their complete safety. However, under the Law “On Rallies” ensuring safety at public gatherings is the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It should also be recalled that in their notification, the organisers had indicated an expected attendance of up to 300 people.

The court of first instance did not, however, even put to the respondent (the city administration) the question of how many people officials believed might actually attend the 1 March rally.

That question was nonetheless answered during the appellate hearing on 15 April by Alexandra Yegorova, head of the public initiatives implementation department of the Irkutsk city administration. She informed the court that the Mayor’s Office had monitored social media and determined that as many as 70,000 people could have gathered at the Yabloko rally in Irkutsk on 1 March.

Gribenko explains that officials may have arrived at this figure by adding up the “reach” (view counts) of social media posts relating to the 1 March rally. He also notes that the city administration considered citizens’ rights to have been adequately protected on the grounds that, following its refusal, the administration had invited the organisers to submit a fresh notification — a step that was supposed to preserve the possibility (and the constitutional right) of holding public events. As Gribenko points out, such a notification was indeed submitted: Yabloko activist Pavel Kharitonenko attempted to hold a similar rally on a different date, but was again refused and is now also in litigation with the Irkutsk Mayor’s Office.

In his appeal, Gribenko sought the full overturn of the Kirovsky District Court ruling, the adoption of a new decision satisfying the administrative claim in full, and the recovery from the city administration of court fees totalling 6,000 roubles, covering both the original administrative claim and the appeal.

The judges deliberated for approximately two minutes, Gribenko recounts, before announcing their decision: the appeal was dismissed.

“The atmosphere in the courtroom, despite the judges’ courtesy and a general sense that the respondent’s position had no legal basis, was such that the judges appeared to know the outcome in advance. I consider the final ruling to be biased and legally unjustified. It will be challenged by way of cassation appeal,” Grigory Gribenko said.

It is worth noting that, in addition to the two attempts in Irkutsk, Yabloko representatives submitted similar applications for “For a Free Internet” rallies in Moscow, Kazan and Stavropol over the course of several months. In each case, the grounds for refusal differed: in addition to Covid-related objections in Moscow, officials cited the alleged “unlawfulness” of demanding free access to information — a right guaranteed by the Constitution — and claimed not to understand the purpose of the events as stated in the applications, namely the cessation of Internet blockings.