Navalnyy v. Russia

Human rights law case

Navalnyy v Russia
CourtEuropean Court of Human Rights
Citation(s)[2018] ECHR 1062, (2018) 29580/12, (2019) 68 EHRR 25
Keywords
Freedom of association, liberty and the right to a fair trial

Navalnyy v Russia [2018] ECHR 1062 is a human rights law case, concerning freedom of association, liberty and the right to a fair trial.[1] It centered around Alexei Navalny, a Russian opposition activist.[2]

Facts

Alexei Navalny, an activist against corruption and a blogger, was arrested seven times between 2012 and 2014 for a rally, three 'walkabout' gatherings, two demonstrations, and a courthouse gathering, and held liable for administrative offences, or disobeying police orders. The Code of Administrative Offences art 20(2) made it an offence to breach procedures for conduct of public gatherings. He was fined and got short custodial sentences. He argued this breached the European Convention on Human Rights articles 5, 6, 11 and 18. He argued the Russian authorities had an ulterior purpose of stopping his political engagement and influence.

Judgment

The European Court of Human Rights held[full citation needed] there were breaches of articles 5, 6 and 11. The Russian courts acted unfairly by basing their judgments only on police accounts, and in all seven cases there was a breach of the right to assembly. Article 18 was breached because there was a pattern of arrest, on progressively more implausible grounds. Response was increasingly severe. It was aimed to suppress political pluralism, which formed part of 'effective political democracy' governed by 'the rule of law'.

See also

  • v
  • t
  • e
Association and assembly sources
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 arts 20 and 23
European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art 11
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 arts 21-22
Int'l Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 art 8
Wilson v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 552
ASLEF v UK [2007] ECHR 184
RMT v United Kingdom [2014] ECHR 366
R v University of Liverpool, ex p Caesar-Gordon [1987] PL 344
Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 9 QBD 308
Kay v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2008] UKHL 69
DPP v Jones [1999] 2 AC 240
Hubbard v Pitt [1976] QB 142
Middlebrook Mushrooms Ltd v TGWU [1993] ICR 612
Appleby v UK [2003] ECHR 222
R v Jones [2006] UKHL 16
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ss 61-77
Brutus v Cozens [1973] AC 854
R v Horseferry Road Magistrate, ex p Siadatan [1991] 1 QB 260
Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218
R (Laporte) v Gloucestershire Chief Constable [2006] UKHL 55
Austin v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 459
R (Hicks) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2017] UKSC 9

References

  1. ^ Nussberger, Angelika (14 May 2020). "The European Court of Human Rights at Sixty – Challenges and Perspectives". The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review. 1 (1): 11–13. doi:10.1163/26663236-00101006. ISSN 2666-3228. S2CID 219771785.
  2. ^ Heri, Corina (25 April 2019). "Navalnyy v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)". International Legal Materials. 58 (2): 315–370. doi:10.1017/ilm.2019.15. ISSN 0020-7829. S2CID 186483279.

External links

  • Full text of the judgment