CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 décembre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 180 December 2014 Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia - 76204/11 Judgment 4.12.2014 [Section I] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Arrest and conviction of political activists for allegedly holding an unauthorised march: violation Facts – The applicants were two political activists and opposition leaders. In 2011 they were arrested for failing to obey a police order to stop a spontaneous march they were alleged to have held after participating in an authorised demonstration. They were held in police custody before being brought to court the following day and sentenced to 15   days’ administrative detention. Their appeals were dismissed. Law – Article 11: The applicants’ arrest, detention and sentence constituted an interference with their right under Article   11. It pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining public order. As regards proportionality, the Court noted that even if the applicants had not intended to hold a march, the appearance of a large group of protestors could reasonably have been perceived as such. However, the march had lasted for only 15   minutes, was peaceful and, given the number of participants, would not have been difficult to contain. The police had thus intercepted the applicants solely because the march was not authorised. The domestic courts had made no attempt to verify the extent of the risks posed by the protestors or whether it had been necessary to stop them. The applicants were subsequently arrested for disobeying police orders, but the Court was unable to establish whether the police had issued any such orders before effecting the arrests. Even assuming the applicants had disobeyed an order to end the march, there had been no reason to arrest them. Moreover, the sentence imposed did not reflect the relatively trivial nature of the alleged offence. Finally, the domestic authorities had expressly acknowledged that the applicants had been punished for holding a spontaneous peaceful demonstration and chanting anti-government slogans. The coercive measures taken had a serious potential to deter other opposition supporters and the public at large from attending demonstrations and, more generally, from participating in open political debate. The chilling effect of those sanctions had been further amplified by the fact that they had targeted well-known public figures, whose deprivation of liberty had attracted broad media coverage. Thus, the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found, unanimously, violations of Article 6 §   1 in respect of the administrative proceedings against the applicants, of Article   5 as regards their unjustified escorting to the police station, their unrecorded and unacknowledged six-hour-long detention in transit and the lack of reasons for remanding them in custody, of Article   13 as regards the lack of effective domestic remedies, and of Article   3 as regards the conditions in which the applicants were held at the police station. Article 41: EUR 26,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Bukta and Others v.   Hungary , 25691/04 , 17   July 2007, Information Note   99 ; Berladir and Others v.   Russia , 34202/06 , 10   July 2012; Fáber v. Hungary , 40721/08, 24   July 2012, Information Note   154 ; Malofeyeva v.   Russia , 36673/04 , 30   May 2013; Kasparov and Others v.   Russia , 21613/07, 3   October 2013, Information Note   167 ; see also the Factsheet on Detention conditions and treatment of prisoners )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes