Here’s a breakdown of the Shevchenko and Others v. Russia decision:
1. **Essence:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, in the cases of several applicants who were penalized for staging solo demonstrations against the war in Ukraine near the Moscow Kremlin. The Court found that these measures were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court found violations regarding the unlawful detention of some applicants who were taken to police stations for compiling offence reports related to these demonstrations, referencing its established case-law on the matter. The Court has jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** Details the lodging of the applications and notification to the Russian Government.
* **Facts:** Lists the applicants and provides details of their complaints, focusing on penalties for solo demonstrations near the Moscow Kremlin.
* **The Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** Confirms the Court’s jurisdiction as the events occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 10:** States the applicants’ complaints about disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators, referencing previous similar cases where violations were found.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law:** Addresses additional complaints related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, referencing existing case-law.
* **Remaining Complaints:** States that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these remaining complaints.
* **Application of Article 41:** Awards sums to the applicants as compensation.
* **Decision:** Formally declares the violations and outlines the compensation to be paid to the applicants.
* **Appendix:** Provides a list of applications, details of the demonstrations, penalties, and amounts awarded.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 10:** The core finding is that penalizing solo demonstrations near the Moscow Kremlin was a violation of freedom of expression because it was disproportionate.
* **Unlawful Detention:** The decision highlights that detaining individuals for compiling offence reports related to these demonstrations also constitutes a violation, referencing established case-law.
* **Compensation:** The appendix specifies the amounts awarded to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage and costs.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for understanding the limitations on freedom of expression and assembly in Russia, especially in the context of anti-war protests and the implications of Russia’s exit from the European Convention on Human Rights. It also highlights the issue of unlawful detention of protesters.
