The Applicant in this case is a Russian national, Konstantin Aleksandrovich Kotov, who currently lives in Moscow. Between March and August of 2019, the Applicant had participated in ‘unauthorised public events’ that were political in nature and called people online to participate in these events. He was convicted under administrative law, fined, and sentenced to short periods of detention.
The Applicant was arrested on suspicion of repeat violations for the participation in public events. He was brought before the Tverskoy District Court on 5 September 2019 and was convicted under the Russian Criminal Code, as well as administrative law, and sentenced to four years imprisonment.
The Applicant lodged a constitutional complaint regarding his imprisonment, to which he was retried and sentenced to one year and six months. The courts deemed that it was “unlikely that his behaviour would change without social isolation.”
The Applicant had relied on six articles under the European Convention of Human Rights to make his case. He drew on Articles 10 regarding freedom of expression and Article 11 regarding freedom of assembly and association, to defend his right to peaceful protest. Additionally, he depended on Articles 5 which protects the right to liberty and security, as well as Article 6 which asserts the right to a fair trial, in order to ground his complaint regarding his unfair imprisonment. Finally, he also drew on Article 8 which enacts the right to a private and family life, as well as Article 1, protocol 1 entitled Protection of Property, which both assert that an individual should not be interfered with unless required by law.
The ECtHR judgment was delivered by a chamber of seven judges. The Court determined it was within their jurisdiction to hear the case, as the incidents leading to the Applicant’s arrest took place before Russia ceased to be a party of the European Convention. The court found that Articles 10 and 11 had been breached.
In examining the potential infringement of Article 10, the Court found that the criminal conviction for participating in unauthorised public events had amounted to the interference of the Applicant’s right to freedom and assembly. The Court held that there was no justification regarding the statement made for “changing his behaviour without social isolation.” The Court reiterated the criminal conviction should not have been issued, and that the Russian national courts had failed to follow the guidelines of its’ constitutional court.
The Court found that Article 11 had clearly been breached, as the national courts failed to explain why the demonstrations were considered violent. Additionally, they failed to properly analyse the Applicants conduct which resulted in a wrongful conviction. The ECtHR also noted the national court did not explain why the applicant was punished for participating in a peaceful protest.