Here is the analysis of the decision in *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*:
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russia violated the rights to freedom of expression and assembly of three applicants who were arrested, detained, and prosecuted for participating in public events or solo demonstrations during Covid-19 restrictions. The Court held that the blanket bans and restrictions imposed by Russian authorities were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society.” While acknowledging the pressing social need to protect public health during the pandemic, the ECtHR found that the authorities overstepped the margin of appreciation by imposing sanctions capable of a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression and assembly. The Court also found violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of an impartial tribunal, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention.
2. The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the main concerns of the applications, followed by a detailed account of the facts, including background information on Covid-19 restrictions in Russia, specifically in Moscow and St. Petersburg. It then presents the facts of each applicant’s case, including their arrests, prosecutions, and the domestic court proceedings. The judgment includes a section on relevant domestic legal framework and practice, including laws on public events, sanitary welfare, and emergency protection, as well as decisions from the Constitutional Court and clarifications from the Supreme Court of Russia. It also cites relevant international materials, such as WHO guidelines and statements from UN Special Rapporteurs. The judgment then addresses preliminary issues such as the joinder of applications and jurisdiction, followed by an assessment of the alleged violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Finally, it addresses other alleged violations of the Convention and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction.
3. The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that restrictions on freedom of assembly and expression must be “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The decision highlights the importance of procedural safeguards and the need for domestic courts to conduct a meaningful balancing exercise between the requirements of public health and the free expression of opinions. The Court found that the blanket bans on public events and the severity of the sanctions imposed on the applicants were disproportionate, especially considering that other activities with comparable public health risks were allowed to continue.
**** This decision has implications for Ukrainians, as it concerns the violation of fundamental rights during restrictions, a situation that may be relevant in the context of martial law and other emergency measures.
