1. Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a case involving two Ukrainian activists who were prevented from holding demonstrations near the Prosecutor General’s Office in Kyiv in 2013. The Court found violations of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and Article 13 (right to effective remedy) of the Convention for both applicants, and additionally found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) for the second applicant who was detained by police.
2. Structure and main provisions:
– The Court examined three main aspects: restrictions on freedom of assembly, lack of effective remedies, and unlawful detention
– The Court found that the Ukrainian legislation (Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Justice) did not constitute sufficient legal grounds for restricting freedom of assembly
– The decision follows the Court’s previous position in the Cheremskyy v. Ukraine case regarding the quality of law requirements
– The Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,800 to the first applicant and EUR 9,800 to the second applicant, plus EUR 2,400 for legal costs
3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court confirmed that post-event appeals cannot be considered effective remedies for violations of freedom of assembly
– The mere existence of a criminal case cannot justify detention without proper legal basis and documentation
– The Court emphasized that restrictions on freedom of assembly must have clear and sufficient legal grounds in domestic legislation
– The decision establishes that blanket bans on demonstrations in specific locations for extended periods are problematic under the Convention
– The Court reaffirmed that Article 11 should be interpreted in light of Article 10, with Article 11 being lex specialis in assembly cases
