Here’s a breakdown of the Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerns the Latvian authorities’ refusal to authorize demonstrations planned by an association (“Rodina”) and a private individual, citing security concerns amidst heightened tensions in 2014 related to events in Ukraine. The applicants argued that the bans violated their rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found no violation, emphasizing that the restrictions were justified to protect national security, public safety, and the democratic order, given the specific context of potential incitement to hatred and support for separatist movements. The Court highlighted that while freedom of assembly is fundamental, it is not absolute and can be restricted when necessary to safeguard democratic values and prevent disorder.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the case’s subject matter: complaints regarding the refusal to authorize assemblies.
* **Facts:** Details the background, including the applicants’ identities, the context of Victory Day celebrations in Latvia, and the political situation in Ukraine in 2014. It describes previous events organized by the first applicant, the specific events that were banned, and the reasoning of the Latvian authorities and courts.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant domestic laws of Latvia, including constitutional provisions and the Law on Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets. It also includes reports by domestic authorities and experts regarding national security threats and freedom of assembly.
* **International Material:** Refers to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and a report analyzing Russia’s disinformation activities in the Nordic-Baltic region.
* **The Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** Decides to examine the applications jointly.
* **Alleged Violation of Articles 10 and 11:** States the applicants’ complaints and the relevant articles of the Convention.
* **Admissibility:** Addresses the Government’s request to apply Article 17 (abuse of rights) and the victim status of the second applicant, joining these issues to the merits.
* **Merits:** Examines whether there was an interference with the applicants’ rights and whether that interference was justified, focusing on whether it was “prescribed by law,” pursued a legitimate aim, and was “necessary in a democratic society.”
* **Conclusion:** Holds that there was no violation of Article 11 read in light of Article 10.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Balancing Freedom of Assembly with National Security:** The decision underscores the importance of balancing the right to freedom of assembly with the need to protect national security and public safety, particularly in situations where there is a risk of incitement to hatred or support for separatist movements.
* **Contextual Assessment:** The Court emphasizes the importance of assessing the context in which assemblies are planned, including the political climate, historical background, and potential for disorder.
* **Margin of Appreciation:** The decision acknowledges that states have a certain margin of appreciation in restricting freedom of assembly, but this margin is not unlimited and is subject to review by the Court. The margin may be wider for associations than for political parties.
* **Article 17 and Abuse of Rights:** While the Court ultimately did not apply Article 17, the discussion highlights the principle that the Convention cannot be invoked to undermine the values of a democratic society.
* **”Pressing Social Need”:** The Court reiterates that any interference with freedom of assembly must correspond to a “pressing social need” and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it references the conflict in Ukraine and the concerns about support for separatist entities. It indicates that expressions of support for such entities can be restricted to protect national security and territorial integrity.
