Homophobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation ...

European Union Agency for Fundamental RightsDisposal <strong>and</strong> Cleanness] 227 including a provision stating that the municipality can refuseto issue approval to events (including those which fall under the scope of the Law onAssemblies) which could lead to a negative reaction in society, or when there areindications, objectively verifiable, that such events could cause breaches of law. Thepurpose of this amendment, it would appear, is to provide a justification to the ban ofLGBT events in the future. It is particularly worrying that such an amendment in effectmight give rise to counter-demonstrators, opposing LGBT people, which could amount toa veto right on the exercise by the latter of their freedom of assembly, since potentialcounter-demonstrators could easily create a climate that would allow the authorities toinvoke the argument of a ‘negative reaction in society’ in order to ban the event.In Greece, the applicable regulations 228 allow for a ban to be imposed on demonstrationswhich threaten the public order, a notion which is understood quite broadly to includerespect for ‘…continued <strong>and</strong> undisturbed operation of public services, public transportetc.’ 229 This led the Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) to conclude,in his consultative Opinion No 4/1999, that these regulations were unconstitutional, sincethe protection of freedom of assembly under the Constitution impose stricter limits on themargin of appreciation left to the Executive. It should, however, be noted that theauthorities have made reasonable use of their powers under the existing legislativeprovisions, so that in practice, no obstacles have been imposed to the exercise by LGBTgroups of their freedom of assembly.A second problem is that in certain cases, the authorities seem not to have ensured asufficient protection of freedom of assembly of LGBT people or organisations. That wasthe case in Latvia until 2007, where organisers of gay prides in Riga had to rely oncourts in order to overturn initial refusals from the authorities to ensure protection fromthe risk of violent counter-demonstrations, in 2005 <strong>and</strong> 2006. In Estonia, organisers ofthe 2007 Gay Pride complained to the Chancellor of Justice’s office about the attitude ofthe police, which, they alleged, had been un-cooperative in the organisation of theparade. The Chancellor concluded that although the requirement of the PõhjaPolitseiprefektuur [Northern Police Prefecture] to ask parade organisers to use a privatesecurity firm to guarantee participants’ safety was not in itself illegal, the refusal of theorganisers to fulfil the requirement could not be a ground for refusing to allow the parade227Vilniaus savivaldybės Tarybos sprendimas dėl Tarybos 2005-01-19 Sprendimo Nr. 1-655 ‘Dėl Tvarkymoir švaros taisyklių’ ir dėl Tarybos 2006-07-26 Sprendimo Nr.1-1299 ‘Dėl Tarybos 2005-01-19 sprendimoNr. 1-655 ‘Dėl Tvarkymo ir švaros taisyklių tvirtinimo’ pakeitimo ir papildymo. b2007 m. lapkričio 14 d.Nr. 1-263.228Greece / Legislative decree 794/1971 which regulates public assemblies (Περί δημοσίωνσυναθροίσεων, Official Gazette, FEK A 1, 01/01/1971); <strong>and</strong> Royal decree 269/1972 which regulates theconditions under which a public assembly can be dispersed (Περί εγκρίσεως του κανονισμούδιαλύσεως δημοσίων συναθροίσεων, Official Gazette, FEK A 59, 29/04/1972).229Supreme Administrative Court – Συμβούλιο Επικρατείας – decision 957/78.112