CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 novembre 2018

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 223 November 2018 Alekseyev and Others v. Russia - 14988/09, 65548/10, 30650/12 et al. Judgment 27.11.2018 [Section III] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment General measures Respondent State required to take general measures in respect of repeated refusals to authorise LGBT public assemblies Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Repeated refusals to authorise LGBT public assemblies: violation Article 13 Effective remedy Lack of effective domestic remedy in respect of repeated refusals to authorise LGBT public assemblies: violation Article 14 Discrimination Repeated refusals to authorise LGBT public assemblies: violation Facts – Between 2009 and 2014 the applicants lodged notices of 51   LGBT public assemblies. In each instance the local authorities refused to approve the dates and locations proposed by the applicants, who unsuccessfully challenged these decisions before the domestic courts. The judgments were, however, in every case issued after the respective dates of the originally proposed assemblies. Law Articles 11, 13 and 14: The Court reached the same conclusions as in the case Alekseyev v.   Russia (4916/07, 21   October 2010, Information Note 134 ). The ban on holding LGBT public assemblies had not corresponded to a pressing social need and had thus not been necessary in a democratic society. Furthermore, the applicants had suffered unjustified discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints concerning a breach of their freedom of assembly. Conclusion : violations (unanimously). Article 46: Under Article 46, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was continuing its supervision of the pending execution of the aforementioned Alekseyev judgment, which it had classified as suitable for the enhanced supervision procedure. Most recently, the Committee of Ministers had issued a decision whereby it had urged the Russian authorities to adopt all further necessary measures to ensure that the practice of local authorities and the courts developed so as to ensure the respect of the rights to freedom of assembly and to be protected against discrimination. It had also invited the Russian authorities to continue action to address effectively the outstanding questions with a view to achieving concrete results. However, in the years which had passed since the Alekseyev judgment no such measures had yet been brought forward by the Government. The Court emphasised that the nature of the violations found in the previous judgment and the extent of the recurring problem at issue, required sustained and long-term efforts in the adoption of general measures to address issues under Articles   11 and 14 in particular. Article 41: finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage. (See also Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , 57818/09 et al., 7   February 2017, Information Note 204 ; and Bayev and Others v.   Russia , 67667/09 et al., 20   June 2017, Information Note   208 )   © 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