Voorhoof, Dirk

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

IRIS 2014-7/1European Court of Human Rights: Taranenko v. RussiaThe European Court’s judgment in the case of Taranenko v. Russia illustrates how Article 10, in conjunction withArticle 11 (freedom of assembly and association), also protects collective action, expressive conduct and distribu-tion of leaflets as a form of protected speech. The case concerns the detention and conviction of Ms Taranenko,a participant in a protest against the politics of President Putin in 2004. The protesters had occupied the recep-tion area of the President’s Administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office. They wavedplacards with “Putin, resign!” («Ïóòèí, óéäè!») and distributed leaflets with a printed address to the Presidentthat listed ten ways in which he had failed to uphold the Russian Constitution, and a call for his resignation. Oneof the protesters, Ms Taranenko, complained in Strasbourg about the way the Russian authorities have treated,detained, prosecuted and convicted her for participating in this protest action, claiming that her right to freedomof expression and her right of peaceful assembly had been violated.The Court reiterated that “the right to freedom of assembly is a fundamental right in a democratic society and, likethe right to freedom of expression, is one of the foundations of such a society. Thus, it should not be interpretedrestrictively”. The Court also emphasised that any measures interfering with freedom of assembly and expression“other than in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles do a disservice to democracyand often even endanger it”. The Court noted that the issues of freedom of expression and freedom of peacefulassembly are closely linked in the present case: “Indeed, the protection of personal opinions, secured by Article10 of the Convention, is one of the objectives of freedom of peaceful assembly as enshrined in Article 11 ofthe Convention”. The European Court underlined that the protest, although involving some disturbance of publicorder, had been largely non-violent and had not caused any bodily injuries. The participants in the protest actioncame to the President’s Administration building to meet officials, hand over a petition criticising the President’spolicies, distribute leaflets and talk to journalists. The aim of the protesters in Moscow was indeed to obtainmedia-exposure, in which they effectively succeeded. The disturbance that followed was not part of their initialplan but a reaction to the guards’ attempts to stop them from entering the building. In this context, the Court hadto examine with particular scrutiny the prison sentence as a sanction imposed by the national authorities for non-violent conduct. The Court found in particular that while a sanction for Ms Taranenko’s actions might have beenwarranted by the demands of public order, her detention pending trial of almost one year and the suspendedprison sentence of three years imposed on her had to have had a deterring effect on protesters. The Courtconsidered the pre-trial detention and the prison sentence as an “unusually severe sanction” having a chillingeffect on Ms Taranenko and other persons taking part in protest actions. The Court referred to the “exceptionalseriousness of the sanctions” as being disproportionate and therefore concluded that the interference had notbeen necessary in a democratic society for the purposes of Article 10. There had accordingly been a violation ofArticle 10 interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the Convention.• Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (First Section), case of Taranenko v. Russia, Appl. No. 19554/05 of 15 May 2014http://merlin.obs.coe.int/redirect.php?id=17082ENDirk VoorhoofGhent University (Belgium) & Copenhagen University (Denmark) & Member of the Flemish Regulator for theMediaThe objective of IRIS is to publish information on legal and law-related policy developments that are relevant to theEuropean audiovisual sector. Despite our efforts to ensure the accuracy of the content, the ultimate responsibilityfor the truthfulness of the facts on which we report is with the authors of the articles. Any opinions expressedin the articles are personal and should in no way be interpreted as representing the views of any organisationsrepresented in its editorial board.© European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg (France)IRIS 1

European Court of Human Rights: Taranenko v. Russia

Voorhoof, DirkRE228010004618190000-0003-2330-3023F4040CB6-F0ED-11E1-A9DE-61C894A0A6B4

Archivsystem Ask23

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5660772/file/5660773

European Court of Human Rights: Taranenko v. Russia

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Archivsystem Ask23