Lashmankin and others v Russia (Application No 57818/09+)

Briefed on 3rd March 2022 and 25th May 2021

Documents from the March 2022 briefing:

• Power point by EIN

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from 11 NGOs (18/01/2022) in the case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russian Federation (Application No. 57818/09) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)126]

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from NGOs (Agora International Human Rights Group and Apologia) (14/02/2022) in the case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russian Federation (Application No. 57818/09) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)214]

• Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Centre de la protection internationale) (24/01/2022) in the case of Lashmankin group v. Russia (Application No. 57818/09) [anglais uniquement] [DH-DD(2022)138]

Documents from the May 2021 briefing:

The case was briefed by Denis Shedow, from OVD-Info and Tatiana Chernikova from HRC Memorial.

• Powerpoint presentation by HRC-Memorial and OVD-Info

• Rule 9.2 submission by Public Verdict Foundation, HRC Memorial, Committee against Torture and OVD-Info (April 2021)

• Rule 9.2 submission by the Centre de la Protection Internationale (April 2021)

• Rule 9.2 submission by Agora International Human Rights Group and Apologia of Protest (April 2021)

The Lashmankin group mainly concerns violations of the right to freedom of assembly in different Russian cities in 2006-2017 (violations of Article 11, interpreted in the light of Article 10), lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 11), deprivation of liberty of the participants in violation of domestic law (violations of Article 5 § 1), excessive use of force to disperse such events and failure to duly investigate it (violations of Article 3), blocking of internet posts calling for the participation in peaceful assemblies and convictions for such calls (violation of Article 10) and subsequent consideration of some of the cases related to these events in violation of in dubio pro reo principle in that the courts interpreted the doubts in favour of the police (violations of Article 6). The Court also found other violations in some of the cases.