Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Kirilyuk and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on Human Rights in the cases of several applicants due to unlawful detention. The Court found that the detentions were carried out in violation of domestic law requirements. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to the lack of impartiality in administrative offense proceedings, restrictions on freedom of expression, secret surveillance measures, and the lack of effective remedies. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages. The violations occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022, thus the Court retained jurisdiction.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses applications lodged against Russia concerning alleged violations of the Convention.
* **Facts:** The facts relate to the applicants’ complaints of unlawful detention and other violations.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Article 5 § 1 Violation:** The Court found that the applicants’ detentions were contrary to domestic law and thus violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also found violations related to the lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, secret surveillance, restrictions on freedom of expression, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for damages.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision reinforces the principle that detention must comply strictly with domestic law. Any deviation from national legal procedures can lead to a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Fair Trial Issues:** The decision highlights the importance of impartiality in administrative offense proceedings, particularly the need for a prosecuting party to ensure fairness.
* **Freedom of Expression:** The decision underscores the protection of freedom of expression, particularly in the context of statements about the military and participation in public assemblies.
* **Secret Surveillance:** The decision emphasizes the need for judicial oversight and effective remedies in cases involving secret surveillance measures.
* **Effective Remedy:** The decision stresses the importance of providing effective remedies for complaints regarding Convention violations, including those related to secret surveillance.
**** This decision is important as it highlights Russia’s violations of human rights prior to its exit from the Council of Europe and sets a precedent for similar cases involving unlawful detention, fair trial issues, freedom of expression, and secret surveillance.
