Here’s a breakdown of the Fedorov and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights in the cases of Fedorov and others due to disproportionate measures taken against them as organizers or participants in public assemblies. The applicants were arrested and convicted 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 identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, restrictions on freedom of expression, and disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators, 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 applications lodged against Russia under Article 34 of the Convention.
* **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them as organizers or participants of public assemblies.
* **Law:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found a violation of Article 11, citing its established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference.
* **Other Violations:** The Court identified additional violations based on previous rulings, including unlawful deprivation of liberty, absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, disproportionate measures against solo demonstrations, and restrictions on public performance as political expression.
* **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided not to separately address additional complaints under Article 6, considering the findings already made.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded sums to the applicants for damages, considering its case-law and the submitted documents.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Freedom of Assembly (Article 11):** The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly and highlights that measures against organizers and participants must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
* **Unlawful Detention and Fair Trial (Articles 5 and 6):** The judgment underscores the need for fair administrative proceedings, including impartiality and lawful detention practices.
* **Freedom of Expression (Article 10):** The decision protects various forms of political expression, including public demonstrations and solo protests, against disproportionate restrictions.
* **Jurisdiction over Past Events:** The Court confirms its jurisdiction over events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for understanding the scope of freedom of assembly and expression, as well as the standards for fair administrative proceedings, in the context of public demonstrations and political activism.
