Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of Selishcheva and Others v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR ruled that Russia violated the rights of ten applicants by denying them the ability to run in municipal elections. The Court found that the collection and storage of the applicants’ political data, which was then shared with electoral authorities, was not “in accordance with the law” and therefore violated Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, the Court determined that barring the applicants from running for office based on their alleged “extremist” involvement, penalized them retroactively for lawful activities, violating their rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court emphasized that these measures created a “chilling effect” on political participation and were not “necessary in a democratic society.”
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Briefly describes the case’s focus on the refusal to register applicants as candidates due to alleged involvement with “extremist” organizations.
* **Facts:** Details the legislative changes in Russia that barred individuals involved with extremist organizations from running in elections. It outlines how the applicants, seeking to run in municipal elections, were denied registration based on police information about their alleged involvement with banned extremist organizations (linked to Alexei Navalnyy). The decision lists various activities used to justify the “involvement,” such as participation in protests, support for opposition coalitions, social media activity, and receiving payments from related organizations.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites the relevant sections of the Electoral Rights Act of the Russian Federation, as well as the Council of Europe’s Recommendation R(87)15 regarding the use of personal data in the police sector.
* **The Law:** This section contains the court’s reasoning.
* **Article 8 Violation:** The Court found that the collection and storage of the applicants’ political data was an interference with their right to private life. It emphasized the lack of a clear legal framework governing the collection and use of such data, the lack of means for applicants to access or challenge the data, and the sensitive nature of the political data requiring heightened protection.
* **Articles 10 and 11 Violation:** The Court determined that denying the applicants’ electoral candidacy based on alleged “extremist” involvement was a violation of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. It highlighted the retroactive penalization for lawful activities, the vague concept of “involvement,” and the lack of a proportionality assessment.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** Briefly addresses additional complaints by one of the applicants but concludes that a separate ruling is unnecessary.
* **Article 41 Application:** Awards each applicant 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Data Collection and Privacy:** The decision underscores the importance of a clear and accessible legal framework governing the collection, retention, and use of personal data, especially sensitive political data. It emphasizes the need for safeguards against arbitrariness, including rules on data retention, deletion, and independent review mechanisms.
* **Freedom of Expression and Assembly:** The ruling highlights that restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and assembly must be “prescribed by law” with sufficient clarity and be “necessary in a democratic society.” Retroactive penalization for lawful activities and vague legal provisions that allow for broad disqualifications are incompatible with these principles.
* **Electoral Rights:** The decision reinforces that restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and not based on tenuous connections to “extremist” activities. Authorities must conduct a meaningful assessment of each individual’s engagement and establish a genuine link to extremist activities before imposing restrictions.
**** This decision is particularly relevant in the context of Russia’s political climate and its implications for individuals and organizations perceived as opposition. It highlights the potential for abuse of anti-extremism legislation to suppress dissent and restrict political participation.
