Here’s a breakdown of the Lekiashvilli and Others v. Russia judgment:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights, concerning freedom of assembly, for disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies. These measures included arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to breaches of COVID-19 restrictions. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and restrictions on private life through the use of facial recognition technology. The cases involve rallies in support of Alexei Navalny and anti-war protests in Ukraine. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them during public assemblies, particularly concerning COVID-19 restrictions.
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted 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 were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating their freedom of assembly.
* **Other Violations:** The Court identified additional violations based on established case-law, including unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in proceedings, and the use of facial recognition technology.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided not to address additional complaints separately, given the findings on Article 11 and other violations.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Freedom of Assembly (Article 11):** The Court reiterated that measures restricting freedom of assembly must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
* **Unlawful Detention (Article 5):** The judgment highlights instances where the detention of protesters was deemed unlawful, particularly concerning the period after compiling an offense report.
* **Lack of Impartiality (Article 6):** The Court emphasized the importance of an impartial tribunal, noting the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative offense proceedings as a violation.
* **Data Privacy (Article 8):** The decision addresses the misuse of facial recognition technology to identify and prosecute participants in public assemblies, infringing on their right to private life.
* **Compensation (Article 41):** The Court awarded specific amounts to each applicant, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, setting a precedent for similar cases.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for understanding the limitations on state power in restricting public assemblies and the protection of fundamental rights, especially in the context of political protests and freedom of expression.
