PLESHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 29356/19 (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association : Third Section) [2023] ECHR 911 (21 November 2023)

PLESHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 29356/19 (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association : Third Section) [2023] ECHR 911 (21 November 2023)

The Court found that the authorities' refusals to approve the applicants' chosen locations for public events constituted an interference with their right to freedom of assembly. While the refusals pursued legitimate aims, the domestic courts failed to apply the standards of necessity and proportionality required by Article 11, did not strike a fair balance between competing interests, and did not provide relevant and sufficient reasons. The procedural safeguards were inadequate, and the restrictions were not necessary in a democratic society. The requirement to exhaust domestic remedies was fulfilled by the applicants.

Citation
[2023] ECHR 911
Parties
Applicants: Pleshkov and Others; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment After Full Merits Hearing
Outcome
Violation of Article 11 of the Convention; requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies fulfilled
Legal Topics
Freedom of Assembly, Judicial Review, Proportionality of Restrictions, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Freedom of Assembly Judicial Review Proportionality of Restrictions Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pleshkov and Others

Applicants

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment After Full Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the authorities' refusal to approve proposed locations for public events violated the applicants' right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the applicants exhausted effective domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the authorities' refusals to approve the applicants' chosen locations for public events constituted an interference with their right to freedom of assembly. While the refusals pursued legitimate aims, the domestic courts failed to apply the standards of necessity and proportionality required by Article 11, did not strike a fair balance between competing interests, and did not provide relevant and sufficient reasons. The procedural safeguards were inadequate, and the restrictions were not necessary in a democratic society. The requirement to exhaust domestic remedies was fulfilled by the applicants.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 11 of the Convention; requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies fulfilled

Orders

  • The Court finds a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
  • The Court dismisses the Government's preliminary objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.