Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Koblikova 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 case of multiple applicants who were disproportionately penalized for participating in public assemblies in St. Petersburg. These assemblies included rallies in support of Alexei Navalny and anti-war protests, which were met with arrests and administrative convictions under the guise of COVID-19 restrictions or other administrative offenses. The Court found that these interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants for participating in public assemblies were disproportionate and violated their right to freedom of assembly.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also identified violations under other articles of the Convention and its protocols, based on well-established case law, including unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and issues related to administrative convictions for discrediting the Russian military.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that there was no need to separately address additional complaints under Article 6 (fair trial) of the Convention.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court ordered Russia to pay specific amounts to each applicant as compensation for damages and expenses, as detailed in the appended table.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly, stating that restrictions must be “necessary in a democratic society,” particularly in the context of public protests and rallies.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision highlights instances of unlawful detention related to arrests and detentions during public assemblies, particularly concerning the procedures for drawing up administrative offense records.
* **Impartiality of Tribunals:** The decision emphasizes the need for impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings, particularly concerning the absence of a prosecuting party.
* **Suspensive Effect of Appeals:** The decision addresses the issue of the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences, noting that immediate execution of such sentences without the possibility of appeal is a violation.
* **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for compensation to victims of violations related to freedom of assembly, unlawful detention, and unfair administrative proceedings in Russia, providing specific amounts for each applicant.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for understanding the limitations on freedom of assembly and the standards for fair administrative proceedings in Russia, especially in the period leading up to its withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. It also highlights the Court’s continued scrutiny of Russia’s human rights practices during that period.
