Here’s a breakdown of the Margovich and Others v. Russia decision:
**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 a series of cases. The applicants, organizers or participants in public assemblies, were subjected to disproportionate measures, including arrests and convictions for administrative offenses, for allegedly breaching COVID-19 restrictions. 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 and fairness of administrative proceedings based on its well-established case-law. The Court awarded the applicants sums 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 during public assemblies, citing breaches of COVID-19 restrictions.
* **Law:**
* The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter.
* It asserted jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention (September 16, 2022).
* The Court referenced its established principles on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference.
* It cited previous cases where similar violations were found.
* The Court found violations of Article 11, stating the interferences were not “necessary in a democratic society.”
* It addressed other complaints under the Convention and its Protocols, finding further violations based on existing case-law regarding unlawful deprivation of liberty and fairness of administrative proceedings.
* The Court decided not to separately address additional complaints under Article 6, considering its prior findings.
* It determined the amounts to be awarded to the applicants under Article 41.
* **Decision:** The Court declared the complaints admissible, found breaches of Article 11, and violations of the Convention and its Protocols. It ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in compensation.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 11:** The core finding is that Russia disproportionately restricted freedom of assembly, particularly in the context of COVID-19 restrictions.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision highlights violations related to unlawful detention, specifically concerning the practice of escorting individuals to police stations for administrative offenses and detaining them for extended periods without “exceptional circumstances.”
* **Fairness of Proceedings:** The judgment points to issues with the impartiality of tribunals in administrative offense proceedings, particularly the absence of a prosecuting party.
* **Lack of Suspensive Effect:** The decision addresses the problem of immediate execution of administrative detention sentences due to the lack of suspensive effect of appeals.
* **Compensation:** The appendix provides a detailed list of applicants, the nature of their complaints, and the amounts awarded for damages and expenses.
**** This decision is related to the violation of the rights of participants of rallies in support of A. Navalnyy and anti-war rallies, so this decision is important for Ukrainians.
