Here’s a breakdown of the Domozhirov and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
This judgment concerns multiple applications against Russia related to the suppression of public assemblies and freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights found that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly) due to disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies, such as arrests and convictions for administrative offenses. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, police searches, and restrictions on media coverage. These violations stem from actions taken before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for the damages suffered.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Russia, with ARTICLE 19 providing third-party comments in one case.
* **Facts:** The judgment consolidates multiple applications concerning disproportionate measures against individuals involved in public assemblies.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted jurisdiction over the cases as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, such as arrests and convictions, were disproportionate and violated their right to freedom of assembly.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, police searches, restrictions on freedom of expression, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to address additional complaints under Articles 6 and 8, given the findings of violations already established.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded specific sums to the applicants as just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and dismissed the remaining claims.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 11:** The judgment reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly and highlights that states must not use disproportionate measures to suppress public assemblies.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision underscores the need for lawful and justified detention, particularly in the context of public assemblies.
* **Fair Proceedings:** The judgment emphasizes the importance of impartiality in administrative proceedings, including the presence of a prosecuting party.
* **Freedom of Expression:** The decision protects the freedom of the media to cover public assemblies without unjustified interference.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The judgment provides a basis for compensation to victims of Convention violations related to freedom of assembly and associated rights.
**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine and Ukrainians as it highlights the importance of protecting freedom of assembly and expression, principles that are particularly crucial in the context of ongoing conflict and political tensions. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need to uphold human rights standards even in challenging circumstances.
