Week-ending 23 October 2020
This week there were five rulings of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to Russia finding violations of Articles 3 (Prohibition on torture); 5 (Right to liberty and security); 6 (Right to fair trial); 10 (Freedom of expression); and 11 (Freedom of assembly and association).
Kotlyarskiy and Others v. Russia
A violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of all applicants; a violation of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention as regards other complaints raised under the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts: EUR 15 to each of the applicants in applications nos. 15024/12 and 15027/12, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the respective representatives’ bank accounts: EUR 850 jointly to the applicants in applications nos. 21041/12, 21052/12, 21056/12, 21059/12, 21065/12, 21066/12, 21068/12, 21072/12, 21096/12 and 21102/12; EUR 850 jointly to the four applicants in application no. 42535/12 who were represented by Ms Davidyan (see the appended table); EUR 1,275 to each of the applicants in applications nos. 15024/12 and 15027/12; EUR 1,350 to the applicant in application no. 57141/12.
A violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of all applicants, except Mr Shchurov, Mr Skorokhod, and Mr Maslov (application no. 74602/14); a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well‑established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts: the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 5,000 to each of the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 9,326 jointly to the applicants in applications nos. 74602/14, 3093/15, 10147/15, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representative’s bank account, as indicated by the applicants.
A violation of Article 10 of the Convention in application no. 39189/09; a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in applications nos. 37565/08, 37581/08 and 42250/08; a violation of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts: EUR 9,800 to Mr Nagibin (applications nos. 9685/08, 22572/08, 37565/08, 37581/08, 57374/08, 10460/09, 39189/09 and 1965/10); EUR 4,000 to Mr Batyy (application no. 37581/08); EUR 6,500 to Mr Nikolayev (application no. 42250/08), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 40 to Mr Nagibin and EUR 850 to Mr Nikolayev, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses.
Art 2 P1 • Art 9 • Respect of parents’ religious convictions • Freedom of religion • No effects from mere presence of seven-year-old child at one-off short religious ceremony in municipal school, without indoctrination aims • Involvement of State limited to provision of school premises to a dominant religious group for a minor one-off event • Swift and adequate reaction by domestic authorities • No right not to witness individual or collective manifestations of other religious or non-religious beliefs and convictions
No violation found. Applications under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9 of the Convention admissible.
A violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of all applicants; a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months: the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage; the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the respective representatives’ bank accounts.
