{"id":1003,"date":"2017-02-07T08:27:49","date_gmt":"2017-02-07T08:27:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rcstaging.co.uk\/ehrac\/?post_type=case-studies&p=1003"},"modified":"2023-10-31T19:53:04","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T19:53:04","slug":"lashmankin-others-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/en_gb\/key-ehrac-cases\/lashmankin-others-v-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Lashmankin and others v Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t

Case No. 57818\/09 et al.
\nJudgment date: 7 February 2017<\/strong><\/p>\n

The 23 applicants in this group of cases are from all over Russia, and had planned public events of various sizes and for varying causes between January 2009 and December 2012. In each case (excepting a single-person picket due to take place on 19 December 2012), the applicants submitted a formal notice to the authorities informing them of the planned action. Their proposals were either refused outright, or the authorities suggested alternatives which did not address the purpose of the event. Due to restrictions imposed upon them, many of the events did not go ahead.<\/p>\n

The applicants complained that the restrictions imposed on their proposed public events had breached their rights to freedom of expression (Art. 10) and peaceful assembly (Art. 11), in several cases, by discriminating against them on the grounds of their political opinions or sexual orientation under Art. 14 ECHR. Relying on Art. 13 in conjunction with Art. 11, the applicants complained that they had no effective remedy, because there was no legal procedure that would have allowed them to obtain an enforceable decision prior to the date of their planned events. Three applicants relied on Art. 5(1) to complain that they were unlawfully and arbitrarily arrested whilst protesting. Three other applicants relied on Art. 6(1) to complain about the quashing of a judgment in their favour by way of supervisory review, and another applicant argued that he had been convicted by a tribunal not established by law.<\/p>\n

Read the full case summary in the Summer 2017 Bulletin.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Links<\/h3>\n