Here is the analysis of the decision in the case of Tsoy and Others v. Russia.
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in favor of 49 applicants who complained about disproportionate measures taken against them for participating in public assemblies in Russia, specifically in connection with breaches of COVID-19 restrictions and protests against the war in Ukraine. The Court found violations of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly) and other articles related to unlawful detention and fair trial rights. The applicants were arrested and convicted for administrative offenses for participating in rallies and protests. The ECtHR has determined that the measures taken against the applicants were not necessary in a democratic society. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs.
2. The decision is structured as follows:
* **Procedure**: Describes the initiation of the case and the applications made to the Court.
* **Facts**: Lists the applicants and details of their complaints.
* **Law**:
* **Joinder of the Applications**: The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction**: Confirms the Court’s jurisdiction as the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention (16 September 2022).
* **Alleged Violation of Article 11 of the Convention**: Addresses the complaints regarding disproportionate measures against the applicants for participating in public assemblies.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law**: Examines other complaints under the Convention and its Protocols based on existing case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints**: States that there is no need to deal separately with additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention**: Determines the compensation to be awarded to the applicants.
* **Appendix**: Provides a list of applications, details of the public events, administrative offenses, penalties, final domestic decisions, other complaints, and the amounts awarded to each applicant.
Compared to previous versions, this decision consolidates numerous similar applications into a single judgment, streamlining the process and reinforcing the Court’s stance on freedom of assembly and related rights in the context of Russia’s actions before its withdrawal from the Convention.
3. The main provisions of the decision that are most important for its use are:
* **Violation of Article 11**: The Court’s finding that the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society” reinforces the importance of protecting the right to peaceful assembly, even during times of public health restrictions or political tension.
* **Unlawful Detention (Article 5)**: The decision highlights instances of unlawful detention related to the compilation of offense reports, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to adhere to due process and avoid arbitrary detention.
* **Fair Trial Rights (Article 6)**: The Court notes the lack of impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings due to the absence of a prosecuting party, underscoring the importance of fair and impartial judicial processes.
* **Compensation (Article 41)**: The decision awards specific amounts to each applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, setting a precedent for compensation in similar cases.
* **Protest against the war in Ukraine**: **** A number of complaints are related to the violation of the right to protest against the war in Ukraine.
