Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of *Bespalov and Others v. Russia*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of assembly, in a series of cases involving disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies. The applicants were subjected to arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to the dispersal of these assemblies. The Court found that these interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court found violations related to unlawful detention and the lack of impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings, awarding sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the applicants. The Court emphasized that it retained jurisdiction over these cases because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
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 alleged violations occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Violation of Article 11:** The Court examined the complaints under Article 11, referencing its established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference. It found that the measures taken against the applicants were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, thus violating Article 11.
* **Other Violations:** The Court also addressed other complaints under the Convention, finding violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, based on its well-established case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that there was no need to separately address additional complaints under Article 6 concerning the fairness of administrative proceedings, given the findings of violations under Article 11 and other provisions.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded specific sums to each applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as indicated in the appended table.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Disproportionate Measures:** The decision highlights that measures such as arrests and administrative convictions against organizers and participants of public assemblies can be considered disproportionate violations of Article 11.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The judgment underscores that detaining individuals solely for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offense record, especially when it is not immediately necessary, constitutes unlawful detention and a violation of Article 5.
* **Impartiality of Tribunals:** The decision emphasizes the importance of an impartial tribunal, noting that the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offense proceedings can violate Article 6 of the Convention.
* **Jurisdiction Post-Withdrawal:** The Court reaffirms its jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, providing a basis for continued scrutiny of past actions.
**** The decision is related to Russia and has implications for individuals affected by similar violations of their rights to freedom of assembly and fair legal processes.
