The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of Vlasov and Others v. Russia, concerning disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants complained about their arrest and conviction for administrative offenses related to the dispersal of these assemblies, arguing that these measures violated their right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The Court found that the interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus constituting a breach of Article 11. Additionally, some applicants raised other complaints related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality of tribunals, and restrictions on freedom of expression, which the Court also found to be violations of the Convention based on its well-established case-law. The Court decided to join the applications and declared some complaints admissible while rejecting others.<\/p>\n
The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, joinder of the applications, jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 11, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, remaining complaints, and application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). The decision references previous case-law, such as Frumkin v. Russia, Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, to support its findings regarding the violation of Article 11. It also cites cases like Butkevich v. Russia, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, and Korneyeva v. Russia to address other violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and fairness of proceedings. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions within the document.<\/p>\n
The main provisions of the decision are the findings of violations of Article 11 regarding freedom of assembly and other violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality, and restrictions on freedom of expression. The Court held that the measures taken against the applicants were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society. The decision also outlines the amounts to be paid to the applicants as just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians, especially those who have faced similar restrictions on their freedom of assembly and expression in territories formerly or currently under Russian control. The findings of the ECHR could be used as a precedent in cases involving similar violations against Ukrainian citizens.<\/p>\n