Here’s a breakdown of the Krylenkov and Others v. Russia decision from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of multiple applicants. These applicants were subjected to disproportionate measures, including arrests and administrative convictions, for participating in public events in St. Petersburg in 2021. The assemblies were related to COVID-19 restrictions, and the Court found that the Russian authorities’ actions were not “necessary in a democratic society.” The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, inadequate conditions of detention during transport, and restrictions on appeals against administrative detention sentences.<\/p>\n
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * The decision addresses 13 applications joined due to their similar subject matter.
\n * The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
\n * The core complaint centered on violations of Article 11 concerning freedom of assembly. The Court referenced its existing case-law, including the Nemytov and Others v. Russia case, which dealt with similar issues related to COVID-19 restrictions and public assemblies.
\n * The Court also addressed other complaints under the Convention and its Protocols, citing established case-law related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, conditions of transport for detainees, and restrictions on appeals.
\n * The decision concludes that there was no need to separately examine additional complaints under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, given the findings on Article 11 and other violations.
\n * The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages.<\/p>\n
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
\n * **Violation of Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reinforces the importance of the right to freedom of assembly, even during times of public health restrictions. It highlights that measures taken against organizers and participants must be proportionate and “necessary in a democratic society.”
\n * **Unlawful Detention and Procedural Issues:** The decision underscores concerns about unlawful detention practices, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and inadequate conditions of detention.
\n * **Impact of COVID-19 Restrictions:** The ruling adds to the body of case-law examining the application of COVID-19 related restrictions to public assemblies.
\n * **Compensation:** The decision provides a clear indication of the amounts the Court deems reasonable for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in cases involving similar violations.<\/p>\n
**** This decision could be relevant for Ukrainians who have faced similar restrictions on freedom of assembly or other related violations, particularly in territories formerly under Russian control or in cases where Russian law was applied.<\/p>\n