TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): and administrative convictions of the applicant also infringed on his freedom of peaceful assembly, which this court has time and again declared to be an essential foundation of a democratic society.
AP1 (Applicant): The Russian Federation's endeavor to justify these infringements as supposedly prescribed by law, undertaken for legitimate aims and necessary in democratic society, is completely unsupported.
AP1 (Applicant): First, the infringements were not based on law because the offenses with which he was charged did not, in fact, take place.
AP1 (Applicant): Second, the interference was neither proportional to any legitimate aim pursued, nor necessary in a democratic society.
AP1 (Applicant): The government's assertion that interference with the applicant's freedom of assembly was necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime, and for the protection of rights and others, it is not supported by a shred of evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): It is well settled by this court that breaking up a peaceful assembly solely because of the absence of the requisite prior authorization without any legal conduct by the participants amounts to a disproportionate restriction of the freedom of peaceful assembly.
AP1 (Applicant): Thus, the applicant's treatment is part and parcel of the unfortunate pattern of hostility by the Russian authorities to the exercise of freedom of assembly in Russia.
AP1 (Applicant): This pattern is reflected in this court's numerous judgments and has been noted by many international organizations, including the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and major non-governmental organizations.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, the applicant also
AP1 (Applicant): submits that he was not given a fair hearing in any of the seven sets of administrative proceedings.
AP1 (Applicant): As a preliminary matter, there is no merit to the government's position that Article VI of the government does not apply because the applicant was subjected to administrative arrests and detentions, which are not criminal under Russian law.
AP1 (Applicant): The court has conclusively held that regardless to the domestic law classifications, administrative arrests, convictions, and fines, such as those imposed on the applicant, fall under the criminal limb of Article VI.
AP1 (Applicant): Further, the applicant submits that in all sets of proceedings, the national court violated key elements of fair trial.
AP1 (Applicant): Most notably, they based their judgments exclusively on their versions of events put forward by the police without any corroboration and refused to admit the applicant's profference of additional evidence and witnesses for the defense.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant, as we set out in detail in our written submissions, claims that his rights to personal liberty and freedom of assembly have been infringed because his political opinions are contrary to those of the ruling party.
AP1 (Applicant): This amounts to a violation of Article XIV, read in conjunction with Articles V and XI of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): A telling illustration of the applicant's discriminatory treatment of demonstrators is that the 6th May 2012 large-scale unauthorized but pro-government demonstration in the center of Moscow was allowed to take place without any arrest, dispersal, or other interference.
AP1 (Applicant): The government's attempt to distinguish this demonstration as a cultural mass event is unsupported, and in any event, only acknowledges disparate treatment of public gatherings based on the content of their message.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, now, with your permission,
AP1 (Applicant): I would like to turn the floor to Ms. Mikhailova, who
AP1 (Applicant): went through all the unfair proceedings against the applicant and did her best to restore the applicant's rights at national level.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, the applicant reiterates that his rights under Article 18 in conjunction
AP3 (Applicant): with Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention have been violated by the Russian authorities.
AP3 (Applicant): He does not share the Chamber's standpoint that its finding that the applicant's rights under Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention had been violated makes it unnecessary to consider that there also been a violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Articles 5 and 11.
AP3 (Applicant): Neither does the applicant share the standpoint of the government that Article 18 does not add any new element to other Articles of the Convention and is just of declaratory nature.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant emphasizes that findings of violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention cannot abate the need to establish a violation of Article 18 as this provision guarantees a separate and autonomous right.
AP3 (Applicant): Such substitution would be contrary to the essence of the Convention.
AP3 (Applicant): His understanding of Article 18 is supported by the Convention itself, preparatory works for Article 18 of the Convention, the court's case law, as well as concurring and dissenting opinions in numerous cases.
AP3 (Applicant): First, Article 18 expressly prohibits restriction of the rights and freedoms and strength in the Convention for purposes not prescribed by the Convention itself.
AP3 (Applicant): Further, the preparatory works indicate that the drafter's underlying concern was to guard against the imposition of restrictions arising from the State's desire to shield the political tendency which it represents from an opposition which it considers dangerous.
AP3 (Applicant): Indeed, according to the court's established case law, though Article 18 cannot apply alone, it can be breached even if there is no violation of the Article in conjunction with which it is applied.
AP3 (Applicant): This underlines its autonomous meaning.
AP3 (Applicant): On numerous occasions, including the present case, the justice of the court and their separate opinions expressed the view that to refrain from examining an Article 18 claim merely because the court found violations of provisions in court with Article 18 deprive the provision of reasonable and independent scope of application.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, the applicant also claims that he has demonstrated in his applications and
AP3 (Applicant): submissions before the Chamber and Grand Chamber that the real aim of the authorities in interfering with this liberty and freedom of assembly in each of the episodes was different from that stated.
AP3 (Applicant): Rather, the authorities were pursuing an ulterior motive, namely to undermine and suppress the applicant's ability to act as a leading opposition leader.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant has been fighting against corruption for more than 10 years.
AP3 (Applicant): His blog is visited by about a million internet users per month.
AP3 (Applicant): He is actively engaged in Russian politics as an opposition leader and has been recognized in international media as arguably the only major opposition figure to emerge in Russia in the past years.
AP3 (Applicant): The man Vladimir Putin fears most, Russia's chief whistleblower and one-man WikiLeaks.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant states that he was targeted and arrested, though he did not cause any nuisances or breach any law.
AP3 (Applicant): And there could be no legitimate reason to arrest and what's more, to keep the applicant under pretrial detention.
AP3 (Applicant): These violations have been extremely repetitive.
AP3 (Applicant): Indeed, repetitive arrests during peaceful assemblies in violation of national laws and the convention have become an administrative practice in the Russian Federation towards those who criticize the government and high-ranking officials.
AP3 (Applicant): The authorities have stated in their observation that the purpose of the applicant's arrest and detention was to ensure the proper and timely examination of the charges against him.
AP3 (Applicant): The applicant reminds the court that he spent long hours in police vans before being taken to police station, where he was additionally kept for either about three hours or kept under pretrial detention.
AP3 (Applicant): Hence, the authority's statement is actually implausible.
AP3 (Applicant): As to the statement of the government, that interference was necessary for prevention of disorder or crime and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the applicant reiterates that he did not engage in aggressive behavior or any breach of the law, which the court requests protection of the rights of others, of prevention of disorder or crime.
AP3 (Applicant): As to the statement of the government, the applicant was surrounded by journalists and talked to them and others.
AP3 (Applicant): This by no means amounts to evidence of any of the stated legitimate aims.
AP3 (Applicant): Rather, it reveals the true aim of preventing the applicant from communicating his views.
AP3 (Applicant): As Judge Keller has noted in her partial dissent in the case of Kasparov v. Russia, legitimate
AP3 (Applicant): justifications could be improperly invoked as a pretext in order to conceal an ulterior motive.
AP3 (Applicant): The drafters of the Convention knew that state intervention in the sphere of Convention rights could potentially entail the abuse of fundamental rights and freedoms for reasons of state or in order to safeguard the ruling regime against opposition actors.
AP3 (Applicant): The provision was designed accordingly to allow the court to address the improper limitation of rights or in other words the illegitimate restriction of Convention rights through pseudo-legitimate means.
AP3 (Applicant): Hence, the applicant submits that the above stated aims were just a cover enabling the authorities to attain hidden purposes.
AP3 (Applicant): These hidden purposes included preventing the applicant from participating in any kind of informal meetings, workouts due to his influence as an opposition leader, as well as a fight against corruption in Russia.
AP3 (Applicant): The authorities also aimed to punish him for his political standpoints and for participation in anti-governmental assemblies and the desire to share his political views with others.
AP3 (Applicant): By taking measures against the applicant, the authorities also aimed to discourage and deter other opposition leaders and the public at large from participating in peaceful assemblies.
AP3 (Applicant): Even if there was any plausibility to the government's stated aims in restricting the applicant's liberty and freedom of assembly, the applicant submits that these restrictions were chiefly meant for an ulterior purpose.
AP3 (Applicant): This is a fundamental aspect of his case.
AP3 (Applicant): The Green Chamber has ruled in its most recent judgment on Article 18 of the Convention that a restriction can be compatible with a substantive Convention provision because it passes an aim permissible under that provision, but still influences Article 18 because it was chiefly meant for another purpose that is not prescribed by the Convention.
AP3 (Applicant): In this case, the applicant, who has been fighting against corruption in Russia for years and is actively engaged in Russian politics, has been harassed by the authorities for years.
AP3 (Applicant): As to the statement of the government that the applicant's allegations that they aim behind taking measures against his political activities, anti-corruption campaigns, as well as discouragement of others to participate in the country's political life, are just a point of view, a personal perception the applicant submits the following.
AP3 (Applicant): In the last year alone, the applicant was deprived of his liberty for so-called administrative offences for 60 days.
AP3 (Applicant): He was numerously arrested through all these years and even convicted.
AP3 (Applicant): This court has found violation of the applicant's rights in four cases, in the majority of which the court found a link between the applicant's political standpoints and the violation of his rights guaranteed by the Convention.
AP3 (Applicant): Furthermore, the applicant has lodged seven more applications with the court, where he claims that his rights and freedoms were violated due to his political views and the fight against corruption in Russia.
AP3 (Applicant): In Japan, mass media, including such as the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, The Guardian, have numerously raised their concerns in respect of the applicant's repetitive arrest, as well as emphasises the applicant's major role in the Russian political life.
AP3 (Applicant): Moreover, the statements made by Russian authorities, including high-ranked officials, leave no doubt that the applicant is considered as a political danger and everything is done to limit his rights and freedoms.
AP3 (Applicant): The response of the President of the Russian Federation to the question concerning the right of the applicant to stand for the presidential elections of 2018 provides a vivid and revealing insight into the government's true concerns about the applicant.
AP3 (Applicant): The Russian President called the applicant the Russian Saakashvili, who is positioned as a very negative politician by Russian authorities, and asked, I quote, Do you want tents like Saakashvili to be running around public squares, and you want these Saakashvili to destabilise the situation in the country?
AP3 (Applicant): Do you want attempted coup d'etat?
AP3 (Applicant): We've lived through all that.
AP3 (Applicant): Do you really want to go back to all that?
AP3 (Applicant): We don't want a second edition of Ukraine for Russia.
AP3 (Applicant): We don't want this, and we won't allow it.
AP3 (Applicant): Based on the above mentioned and the arguments brought in the applicant's written submission, the applicant claims that his rights guaranteed by Article 18 read in conjunction with Articles 11 and 5 of the Convention were violated, which in its turn undermines the values of a democratic society governed by the rule of law.
AP3 (Applicant): As the justices on this court stated in their separate opinions, if the human rights of political active persons are restricted for the purpose of hindering or making impossible their participation in the political life of a country, democracy is a danger.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr President, with your permission, now I would like to give the floor to Mr Navalnyy, the applicant.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mr. Michello and Mr. Navalny for seven minutes, please.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, honorable members of the court,
AP2 (Applicant): I would like to begin by quoting my esteemed opponents.
AP2 (Applicant): The European Court of Human Rights did not find political persecution in the case of Navalny.
AP2 (Applicant): This was the triumphant hazing of press release recently issued by the Russian Ministry of Justice in connection with their loss in yet another of my cases.
AP2 (Applicant): The court found that my right to fair trial had been violated, that the very fact of a criminal violation was also absent.
AP2 (Applicant): It is a wonderful, just decision.
AP2 (Applicant): I'm satisfied with it.
AP2 (Applicant): But nevertheless, it fully satisfies my opponents.
AP2 (Applicant): They consider themselves victorious, so long as there is no findings under Article 18 of the convention.
AP2 (Applicant): This is a key issue.
AP2 (Applicant): I would like to direct the attention of the honorable justices.
AP2 (Applicant): The very fact of this court's reluctance to address Article 18 in Russian cases has become a weapon of political propaganda of the regime, which quite cynically uses this court in its effort to justify its action in violation of human rights.
AP2 (Applicant): In this case, we are required to submit proof of political motives for the persecution of those exercising the right to freedom of assembly.
AP2 (Applicant): My colleagues have offered brilliant legal arguments.
AP2 (Applicant): If I may be permitted, I would like to offer an argument that is not legal, but rather mathematical.
AP2 (Applicant): Let's suppose that there is no political motives in my cases, that they are not managed from the Kremlin.
AP2 (Applicant): It's just a flaw of the judicial system.
AP2 (Applicant): But tell me, please, what is the probability that the Russian judicial system always breaks down precisely when it considers the cases of a particular individual?
AP2 (Applicant): Indeed, here in the European Court, there is already a sufficient number of cases directly demonstrating this.
AP2 (Applicant): We have won all the cases that have reached this court's review.
AP2 (Applicant): At minimum, the court always finds violation of Article 6 and 5 in each case involving my detention and arrests.
AP2 (Applicant): The same is true for any participant in rallies organized by me.
AP2 (Applicant): Over the past several years, I have been in prison not fewer than seven times.
AP2 (Applicant): Last year, when I was campaigning for the presidents, I spent two months in prison cell.
AP2 (Applicant): Each time when I announced a protest rally, the authorities first unlawfully prohibited and then arrested me and my colleagues for exercising our right to freedom of assembly.
AP2 (Applicant): To reiterate, these are not my assumptions.
AP2 (Applicant): They are directly affirmed by the judgments of the European Court that have entered into force.
AP2 (Applicant): Hence, the probability that all this can be without political coordination and political motives is as low as the probability of meeting a dinosaur by the building of the court, or the probability of Vladimir Putin losing the election for the president of Russia, a probability even lower than the dinosaur scenario.
AP2 (Applicant): Honorable Court, we are dealing with a cynical, well-thought out, prolonged practice of the Russian authorities of excluding the entire group of population and their representative from any form of political activity.
AP2 (Applicant): The right to assembly is viewed by the authorities as especially prohibited for the opposition.
AP2 (Applicant): Why?
AP2 (Applicant): Because it is the last resort to expressing dissent while all other avenues have been barred.
AP2 (Applicant): We are barred from mass media.
AP2 (Applicant): We are barred from election.
AP2 (Applicant): We cannot obtain just ruling in the courts.
AP2 (Applicant): Our NGOs are being liquidated.
AP2 (Applicant): Our political parties are denied registration.
AP2 (Applicant): I would like, once again, point out that my words are not political position, but a legal fact established by this court.
AP2 (Applicant): After all, I stand here as a candidate for president of Russia who was barred from participation in this election on the grounds of a fabricated criminal case that has been reviewed by this court.
AP2 (Applicant): The court ruled that the criminal verdict must be overturned.
AP2 (Applicant): Thereafter, the committee of ministers found that the Russian government has failed to implement the judgment and even expressly called upon the Russian government to allow me access to the election.
AP2 (Applicant): Nonetheless, that has not happened.
AP2 (Applicant): My supporters and I, again, excluded from the political process merely because Vladimir Putin fears that it would be more difficult for him to win the election with real competition.
AP2 (Applicant): What can be better proof of the political motives behind cases fabricated against me?
AP2 (Applicant): Honorable court, I understand that it's in the nature of any good judge to steer away from political elements of the cases and to focus on the legal aspects.
AP2 (Applicant): However, the drafters of the convention included Article 18 in the order that we will not forget that violation of human rights can stem from political motives.
AP2 (Applicant): The danger to democracy arises most often when a group of politicians crave power so strongly that respect for the law becomes optional and human rights an empty declaration.
AP2 (Applicant): That is precisely why I call upon the court to undertake this unpleasant task, to consider not only the right to freedom of assembly, but also political context surrounding these five cases, to trace the parallels and see what is self-evident.
AP2 (Applicant): The Russian authorities believe that my colleagues and I, people of certain political views, are specifically not covered by the convention of human rights.
AP2 (Applicant): I ask the court to give a clear and unambiguous answer to all those who see disorder in the room, talk about it, but try their best to ignore a great elephant which is crushing everything and is the reason for that disorder.
AP2 (Applicant): I would like the court to say, do not expect that in pursuit of judicial procedure and precise formulation, we will lose the sight of the overall picture.
AP2 (Applicant): The desire for uncontrolled power and intolerance of any criticism became the reason of what is going on in my country.
AP2 (Applicant): This is precisely to describe the phenomenon that the phrase political motives has been constructed.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, based on the written and oral submission,
AP2 (Applicant): we ask this court to affirm the violation of Articles 5, 6, and 11 as well as invite the Court to find violation of Article 18 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mr. Navalnyy. Now I call Mr. Galperin, please, you have the floor.
GR1 (Government): Thank you, Mr. President of the Court,
GR1 (Government): Honorable Judges, Applicant and Applicant's Counsels, distinguished colleagues.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, I would like to say that it is very unwise to suspect that Russian government is somehow benefit and always won in this court.
GR1 (Government): And I think that is really the applicant, as he said just several minutes ago, just won in this court on all cases that he submitted to it.
GR1 (Government): But I appear for the government today with respect to his submission that no violation of European Convention on Human Rights occurred in this case.
GR1 (Government): Turning first to the applicant's complaints under Article 11, he has made some tendentious statements before this court.
GR1 (Government): And it is important, however, to begin with today with a legal assessment by identifying at fundamental points of common grounds between the government and applicant.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, in paragraph 110 of his observation to the Grand Chamber, he accepted that the law requiring prior notification in Russia is essential.
GR1 (Government): And it was also good to hear today from Mrs. Mikhailova just several minutes ago
GR1 (Government): that she acknowledged clearly that applicants' actions were against national law.
GR1 (Government): The state has a duty to ensure the public security and that demonstrations on the streets take place safely and peacefully.
GR1 (Government): It is citizens going about their ordinary business are entitled to be protected by the state in each episode.
GR1 (Government): The demonstrators themselves need to be protected by stopping and diverting traffic.
GR1 (Government): There must be a police presence to preserve order.
GR1 (Government): There must be a medical contingent to time and the right places to deal with any injuries which could happen.
GR1 (Government): To achieve all of these, demonstration must be held in a reasonable hour, in a reasonable place, and must be prior notification to the authorities made.
GR1 (Government): In Russia, as well as Italy, Germany, Greece, Ukraine, Albania, France, Czech Republic, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Armenia, Finland, the UK, the Netherlands, and Georgia, the parliaments have decided legitimately and democratically that prior notice is needed to protect public order and safety.
GR1 (Government): And in 13 states, the failure to give a prior notification of an assembly or to comply with that restriction imposed could be a sufficient ground in itself for dispersing an assembly.
GR1 (Government): However, this court and its decisions have sometimes protected a right to continue a non-agreed demonstration.
GR1 (Government): The present case helps us to understand the necessity of notification and liability for a failure to notify.