331_8 personal_scope 8. The Court notes that during the demonstration the applicant displayed a banner which expressed his opinion on the President’s policies, thereby contributing to an ongoing political debate on a matter of public concern. He acted peacefully and did not create any disturbance of public order (see Laguna Guzman v. Spain, no. 41462/17, §§ 33, 51-52, 6 October 2020, with further references, and, by contrast, Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, § 41, 7 October 2008). There was no conflict between the applicant and the SEMENOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 3other participants in the demonstration because of the message he conveyed; nor was it suggested that such a conflict could emerge (see, by contrast, Fáber, cited above, §§ 53-58). On the contrary, the other participants in the demonstration supported the applicant (see paragraph 1 above). The police intervention was therefore triggered by the contents of the banner as such and not by the applicant’s provocative or otherwise offensive conduct. The domestic courts justified the applicant’s administrative convictions by mere reference to the “clearly political nature” of the banner and its deemed contradiction with the declared aim of the demonstration (see paragraph 2 above). Their judgments, however, contained no analysis as to why they viewed the “clearly political nature” of the banner as problematic, given that it contained no incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-IX). Furthermore, the domestic courts omitted to indicate what the alleged differences were between the declared aim of the demonstration and the applicant’s banner (see Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008). In such circumstances, regard being had to the severity of the penalties faced by the applicant (see paragraph 2 above) and the fact that he had been removed from the demonstration venue, it cannot be said that the interference with his freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society.