Information Note on the Court’s case-law 223

November 2018

Alekseyev and Others v. Russia - 14988/09, 65548/10, 30650/12 et al.

Judgment 27.11.2018 [Section III]

Article 46

Article 46-2

Execution of judgment

General measures

Respondent State required to take general measures in respect of repeated refusals to authorise LGBT public assemblies

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of peaceful assembly

Repeat ed refusals to authorise LGBT public assemblies: violation

Article 13

Effective remedy

Lack of effective domestic remedy in respect of repeated refusals to authorise LGBT public assemblies: violation

Article 14

Discrimination

Repeated refusals to authorise LGBT public assemblies: violation

Facts – Between 2009 and 2014 the applicants lodged notices of 51 LGBT public assemblies. In each instance the local authorities refused to approve the dates and locations proposed by the applicants, who unsuccessfully challenged these decisions before the domes tic courts. The judgments were, however, in every case issued after the respective dates of the originally proposed assemblies.

Law

Articles 11, 13 and 14: The Court reached the same conclusions as in the case Alekseyev v. Russia (4916/07, 21 October 2010, Information Note 134 ). The ban on holding LGBT public assemblies had not corresponded to a pressing social need and had thus not been necessary in a democratic society. Furthermore, the applicants ha d suffered unjustified discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints concerning a breach of their freedom of assembly.

Conclusion : violations (unanimously).

Article 46: Under Article 46, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was continuing its supervision of the pending execution of the aforementioned Alekseyev judgment, which it had classified as suitable for th e enhanced supervision procedure. Most recently, the Committee of Ministers had issued a decision whereby it had urged the Russian authorities to adopt all further necessary measur es to ensure that the practice of local authorities and the courts developed so as to ensure the respect of the rights to freedom of assembly and to be protected against discrimination. It had also invited the Russian authorities to continue action to addr ess effectively the outstanding questions with a view to achieving concrete results. However, in the years which had passed since the Alekseyev judgment no such measures had yet been brought forward by the Government.

The Court emphasised that the nature of the violations found in the previous judgment and the extent of the recurring problem at issue, required sustained and long-term efforts in the adoption of general measures to address issues under Articles 11 and 14 in particular.

Article 41: finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.

(See also Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , 57818/09 et al., 7 February 2017, Information Note 204 ; and Bayev and Others v. Russia , 67667/09 et al., 20 June 2017, Information Note 20 8 )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes