Rockers dragged themselves around the courts – Newspaper Kommersant No. 165 (7366) of 09/08/2022

Unspoken bans on performances by Russian musicians who made anti-war statements led to the first legal proceedings. The rock band Anacondaz filed a lawsuit against local officials and the police with the Leninsky District Court of Yekaterinburg, demanding that the cancellation of its concerts in July 2022 at two city venues be illegal. The musicians refer to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the legislation on culture, which give the right to freedom of creativity and assembly, they talk about the notification nature of concert approvals and the police exceeding their powers. Lawyers interviewed by Kommersant call the references to laws “fair”, but believe that the claim is unlikely to be satisfied, since the “most far-fetched arguments” of the defendants “can be accepted by the court as sufficient.”

The concert “Pauzern Picnic” by Anacondaz was scheduled for July 22, 2022 at the Yekaterinburg Tele-Club. On July 7, the organizer of the concert (entrepreneur Gleb Yuryev) submitted a notification to the head of the Yekaterinburg Ministry of Internal Affairs, and on July 11 to the city administration, but received refusals to approve the event. A new venue for the performance was chosen – on the beach of the Cuba Cuba complex. But on July 22, the police arrived there under the leadership of the deputy head of the city law enforcement department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, Major Dmitry Bardyshev, with a notification that the concert would not take place. Anacondaz musicians Artem Khorev and Sergey Karamushkin appealed to the Leninsky District Court of Yekaterinburg. “The actions and decisions of the defendants violated the constitutional rights of artists (creative workers),” the text of the lawsuit says (Kommersant has it). The musicians refer to Articles 29, 34 and 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which guarantee freedom of speech, creativity and entrepreneurship, as well as to the Fundamentals of the Russian Legislation on Culture. The last law, the artists emphasize, interprets cultural activity as an “inalienable right of a citizen” and proclaims the priority of human rights in the field of cultural activity “in relation to the rights of the state.” Anacondaz draws attention to Article 31 of the law, according to which all branches of power in the Russian Federation act as “the guarantor of the rights and freedoms of subjects of cultural activity.” The authorities “do not interfere in the creative activities of citizens … except in cases where such activities lead to propaganda of war, violence and cruelty,” the lawsuit emphasizes.

The musicians also pointed out that Sverdlovsk Oblast Government Decree 333-PP of May 2003 defines a notification, rather than a permissive, procedure for holding events. According to the artists, the police, who did not allow the audience to the concert, “went beyond their authority.” The police were notified of the event and were ready to maintain order during it, as evidenced by the police and traffic police crews who arrived at the scene. The rock band demands the court to recognize the actions of officials and the police as illegal. There are no material claims in the lawsuit; The first meeting will be held on 26 September.

The cancellation of concerts by rock musicians who express disagreement with the conduct of a military special operation in Ukraine began in Russia in March-April 2022. After the departure of Boris Grebenshchikov, Zemfira, “Time Machine” (Andrey Makarevich is included in the register of foreign agents), Oxxxymiron and Noize MC, messages began to appear about the cancellation of concerts of other musicians. Since May 2022, DDT and Bi-2 cannot perform in Russia, since June – Manizha (represented the country at Eurovision 2021). The statements of the speaker of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation Valentina Matvienko, who called for no witch-hunting, and the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, who asked not to apply the “cancellation culture” to the same Bi-2s, did not seem to have had much effect. The last case was the cancellation of the performance of the Spleen group on August 26 at the capital’s Music with a Strong Character festival. The leader of the group, Alexander Vasiliev, did not even speak about the situation in Ukraine, but only expressed the hope (at the previous concert in Voronezh) that Time Machine, Aquarium and Tequilajazzz, who were forced to leave the Russian Federation, would return “and we will sing for you.” Documents explaining the reasons for the cancellation of concerts of rock musicians were not published.

It should be noted that in the 1970s and 1980s the USSR had its own campaign against rockers: lists of “ideologically harmful groups” were distributed by the leadership of Komsomol organizations, for example, among the leading discos. At the same time, the legal status of such documents and their authenticity are still not clear. One of the popular “documents” of that era is a letter from 1985, allegedly intended to “strengthen control over the activities of discos.” It featured singer Tina Turner (“propagandizing sex”), the Scorpions (“violence”), Iron Maiden (“violence, religious obscurantism”) and Pink Floyd (“perversion of the foreign policy of the USSR”). Under the “circular” – the signature of an employee of the Nikolaev regional committee of the Komsomol of the Ukrainian SSR, comrade Pryazhinskaya.

The administration of Yekaterinburg refused to comment on Anacondaz’s claims, citing the fact that they had not received the statement of claim. The interlocutor of “Kommersant” in the mayor’s office confirmed that the city really does not have the authority to ban or allow concerts. Anacondaz lawyer Alexei Bushmakov told Kommersant that before the concert, the Yekaterinburg Tele-Club received a letter from the regional Minister of Culture Svetlana Uchaikina with a request to take into account the responsibility for discrediting the Russian army (according to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) when organizing concerts. Tele-Club confirmed the receipt of the minister’s appeal, calling it “a fairly standard information letter about innovations in legislation.”

Amulex.ru lawyer Ekaterina Popova calls Anacondaz’s references to the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the lawsuit “fair”. “The Constitution enshrines the fundamental rights of citizens, and all normative legal acts are adopted on the basis of and in pursuance of the Constitution,” she explains. Ms. Popova agrees that the said decree of the government of the Sverdlovsk region (2003) “implies notification, not approval of the event”, but recalls that “the state, represented by law enforcement agencies, must monitor compliance with the rules for holding mass events”, including ensuring fire safety and protection from emergencies: “If the rules are not followed, there are grounds for banning the event.” “In Russian realities, in fact, there is not a notification, but a permissive regime for holding public events. This position is massively supported by the courts,” says Georgy Krasnov, a lawyer for the Logard Advocacy Group.

Ms. Popova believes that representatives of the authorities or the Ministry of Internal Affairs “are obliged to give reasons for disagreement”, therefore “there is a possibility” that the police went beyond their powers. According to Mr. Krasnov, this can be established after the detailed position of the defendants is presented in court. “In addition to formal grounds, they will have to give factual reasons – why the holding of the event was “not approved” and what real danger it entailed. But given the low standard of proof, even the most far-fetched arguments can be accepted by the court as sufficient,” the lawyer suggests. He assesses the prospects for satisfaction of the claim as “negligible”. “The position of law enforcement agencies looks stronger. Non-coordination of events under the current legislation has more grounds than attempts to achieve a positive decision for holding such events,” Andrey Saunin, head of Saunin Law Practice, also believes.

Alexander Voronov; Tatiana Drogaeva, Yekaterinburg