Here’s a breakdown of the Borovinskikh and Others v. Russia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in a series of cases involving Russian citizens who were prosecuted for expressing anti-war sentiments and support for Ukraine. The applicants were penalized under Russian laws that criminalized “discrediting” the military and spreading “fake news.” The ECHR found that these restrictions on freedom of expression were not justified and were part of a broader effort by Russian authorities to suppress dissent related to the war in Ukraine. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, fair trial principles, and freedom of assembly. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for damages and costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine 26 applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction over the cases, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. It also asserted jurisdiction over cases originating from Crimea, considering Russia’s control over the region since March 18, 2014.
* **Violation of Article 10:** The Court referenced its prior judgment in *Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia*, which established a pattern of suppressing dissent related to the war in Ukraine. It found that the restrictions on the applicants’ freedom of expression violated Article 10 of the Convention.
* **Other Violations:** The Court identified additional violations under Articles 5, 6, and 11 of the Convention, based on its established case-law, concerning issues such as unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in trials, and disproportionate measures against participants in public events.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that it was not necessary to rule separately on other complaints, including those under Article 18, as the main legal questions had been addressed.
* **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Restrictions on Freedom of Expression:** The decision highlights that prosecuting individuals for expressing anti-war sentiments or support for Ukraine constitutes a violation of Article 10, particularly when such prosecutions are based on vaguely defined laws like those criminalizing “discrediting” the military.
* **Systemic Suppression of Dissent:** The Court’s reference to the *Novaya Gazeta* case emphasizes that the restrictions were part of a coordinated effort to suppress dissent related to the war in Ukraine, rather than legitimate measures to protect national security.
* **Unlawful Detention and Fair Trial:** The decision underscores the importance of lawful detention procedures and fair trial principles, particularly in administrative offense proceedings.
* **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reaffirms the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and highlights that disproportionate measures against participants in public events can constitute a violation of Article 11.
* **Jurisdiction over Crimea:** The Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over cases from Crimea confirms that Russia is accountable for human rights violations in the region since March 2014.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukrainians, as it addresses the suppression of pro-Ukrainian views and anti-war protests within Russia and Russian-occupied territories, highlighting the human rights implications of the conflict.
