Here’s an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Dobrusin and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of several applicants who were penalized for participating in public assemblies, often related to protests in support of Alexei Navalny, during COVID-19 restrictions. The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, such as arrests and administrative convictions, were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, awarding sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the applicants. The Court emphasized that it had jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia, which were then joined due to their similar subject matter.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them for participating in public assemblies during COVID-19 restrictions and raised other complaints under the Convention.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over the cases since the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 11:** The Court referenced its established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference, finding that the restrictions imposed on the applicants were not necessary in a democratic society, thus violating Article 11.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court found additional violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, referencing previous case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to address additional complaints under Article 6, given the findings of violations under Article 11 and other established case-law.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded specific sums to each applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly, even during times of crisis (like a pandemic), and emphasizes that restrictions must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The ruling highlights that detaining individuals solely for the purpose of drawing up administrative offense records is a violation of their rights.
* **Impartiality of Tribunal:** The decision underscores the necessity of an impartial tribunal, noting that the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings can compromise fairness.
* **Jurisdiction over Past Events:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over events that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention, which is crucial for pending and future cases related to that period.
**** This decision may be relevant for Ukrainians and Ukraine, especially considering the context of restrictions on public assemblies and potential human rights violations in occupied territories or in cases involving Ukrainian citizens affected by Russian actions before September 16, 2022.
