PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGHIDES

1. The present case concerns the alleged restrictions imposed by the domestic authorities on the location of public events held by the applicants and, consequently, on the exercise of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. It also concerns the alleged lack of any relevant domestic remedies.

2. I voted in favour of points 1-5 and 7 of the operative provisions of the judgment, but against points 6 and 8.

3. Regrettably, though the Government did not submit that the applicants should not be afforded any sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and only considered that their claims were excessive and unreasonable (see paragraph 75 of the judgment), the Court nevertheless made no monetary award under this head.

4. My disagreement lies with the Court’s decision in paragraph 76 of the judgment and with point 6 of its operative provisions, namely, “that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants”.

5. I do not wish to give a fully-fledged opinion, but rather to express briefly my disagreement since, already in a number of separate opinions, I have more fully explained what I consider to be the logical fallacy contained in the ritual formula used in point 6 of the operative provisions to avoid affording victims of a Convention violation any monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, inter alia , paragraphs 22-38 of my partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, 26 September 2023, and the joint partly dissenting opinion I authored with Judge Felici in Grzęda v. Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, 15 March 2022).

6. Based on the provisions of Article 41 of the Convention and the facts of the case, and with a view to affording the applicants practical and effective protection of the right that has been infringed, I would have awarded them monetary compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the amount of which – being, as I am, in the minority – it is not necessary to determine.

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Represented by

Applicant

Year of birth

1.

29356/19

16/05/2019

Yevgeniy Vladislavovich SOKOLOV

Vladimir Vladislavovich PLESHKOV

1964

2.

31119/19

25/05/2019

Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO

Svetlana Nikolayevna ASTRAKHANTSEVA

1975

Alla Igorevna FROLOVA

1965

Svetlana Alekseyevna GANNUSHKINA

1942

Nikolay Yuryevich KAVKAZSKIY

1986

Oleg Aleksandrovich YELANCHIK

1990

Natalya Alekseyevna ZVYAGINA

1981