Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Derrek and Others v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns a police raid on an LGBT workshop in Yaroslavl, Russia. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russian authorities violated the rights of the applicants (LGBT activists) under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court concluded that the police raid, personal searches, obligatory drug testing, and the subsequent lack of effective investigation were discriminatory and amounted to degrading treatment. The ECtHR also found violations related to the applicants’ unlawful deprivation of liberty and the disruption of their freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court highlighted the homophobic motivation behind the authorities’ actions and the chilling effect on the LGBT community.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction and Facts:** The judgment outlines the background of the case, including the police raid on the LGBT workshop, the treatment of the applicants during the raid, and their subsequent complaints to domestic authorities.
* **The Law:** This section details the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Articles 3, 5, 11, 13, and 14.
* **Jurisdiction and Correspondence with the Respondent Government:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over the case, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention.
* **Alleged Violations:** The judgment addresses the applicants’ complaints under various articles of the Convention, examining the admissibility and merits of each claim.
* **Article 3 (Degrading Treatment) and Article 14 (Discrimination):** The Court found a violation of Article 3, both substantively and procedurally, in conjunction with Article 14, due to the degrading treatment and the ineffective investigation into the discriminatory motives behind the police actions.
* **Article 5 (Right to Liberty and Security):** The Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1, noting that the applicants were unlawfully deprived of their liberty during the raid and subsequent transfer to a hospital and police station.
* **Article 11 (Freedom of Assembly):** The Court found a violation of Article 11, as the disruption of the workshop constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court declared other complaints admissible but found no need for separate examination due to its previous findings.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
* **Separate Opinion of Judge Zünd:** Judge Zünd partly dissented, disagreeing with the finding of a violation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14, arguing that the threshold for inhuman or degrading treatment was not attained.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Discrimination and Homophobia:** The decision emphasizes the importance of investigating potential discriminatory motives, particularly in cases involving hostility against the LGBT community.
* **Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty:** The judgment underscores the need for proper recording and procedural guarantees during any deprivation of liberty, even for short durations.
* **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reaffirms the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and highlights that any restrictions must be justified by a “pressing social need” and be “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Effective Investigation:** The decision highlights the importance of conducting a meaningful inquiry into allegations of ill-treatment with discriminatory intent by the police.
**** This decision may be relevant to Ukraine, particularly in the context of ensuring the rights and freedoms of LGBT individuals and preventing discrimination and ill-treatment by law enforcement authorities.
