Here’s a breakdown of the Mikhaylova and Others v. Russia judgment:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case concerns multiple applicants who were subjected to disproportionate measures, such as arrests and administrative convictions, for participating in public assemblies in St. Petersburg. These assemblies often related to political support or anti-war protests and were deemed in breach of regional COVID-19 restrictions. The Court determined 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 fairness of administrative proceedings, awarding compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them for participating in public assemblies in St. Petersburg, allegedly violating COVID-19 restrictions.
* **Joinder of 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 Article 11 of the Convention. It referenced previous case-law, including *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, to support its findings.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court also addressed other complaints under the Convention and its Protocols, finding violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and fairness of administrative proceedings, referencing previous case law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to address separately additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, considering the findings already made.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded the applicants sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as indicated in the appended table.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 11:** The core finding is that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention by disproportionately interfering with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The Court highlighted violations related to unlawful detention, particularly the practice of detaining individuals for the sole purpose of drawing up administrative offense reports.
* **Fairness of Proceedings:** The judgment points out issues with the fairness of administrative-offense proceedings, including the lack of impartiality due to the absence of a prosecuting party.
* **Compensation:** The decision establishes that the applicants are entitled to compensation for the violations they experienced, providing a basis for similar cases.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians, especially those who have faced similar restrictions on their freedom of assembly or have been subject to administrative penalties for participating in protests or public events, particularly in territories formerly under Russian control or influence.
