Here’s a breakdown of the Dadin and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
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 the cases of several applicants who faced disproportionate measures for participating in or organizing public assemblies. The Court also found violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, inadequate conditions of detention during transport, and ill-treatment of detainees, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court awarded EUR 10,000 to the heir of one applicant, Mr. Dadin, and declared that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the remaining applicants. The decision addresses events that occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022, and the Court asserted its jurisdiction accordingly.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **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 facts occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
* **Locus Standi:** The Court accepted Mr. Dadin’s widow as having a legitimate interest in pursuing the application following his death.
* **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants for participating in public assemblies were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating Article 11.
* **Other Violations:** The Court identified additional violations related to unlawful detention, unfair proceedings, and poor detention conditions, based on existing case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded EUR 10,000 to Mr. Dadin’s widow and found that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the remaining applicants.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The ruling reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly and highlights that measures taken against participants must be proportionate.
* The decision cites previous cases (Frumkin, Navalnyy and Yashin, Kasparov and Others) which can be used as a reference for similar cases regarding freedom of assembly in Russia.
* The judgment confirms that heirs can continue an application on behalf of a deceased applicant.
* The decision underscores the Court’s jurisdiction over cases related to events that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention.
* The findings regarding unlawful detention, unfair proceedings, and poor detention conditions, supported by references to established case-law (Butkevich, Tsvetkova, Korneyeva, Karelin, Tomov, Lyapin), provide a basis for assessing similar violations.
**** This decision is related to Russia, but it is important for Ukraine, because it concerns the violation of human rights, namely the right to peaceful assembly, which is important for Ukrainians.
