Quick answer
In Navalnyy v. Russia (Grand Chamber, 15 November 2018, applications nos. 29580/12 and four others), the European Court of Human Rights held that the repeated arrest and prosecution of the opposition politician at public gatherings violated Article 5, Article 6 and Article 11 — and, most significantly, Article 18 taken with Articles 5 and 11, because the restrictions had pursued the ulterior purpose of suppressing political pluralism.
Background and facts
The applicant, a well-known Russian opposition politician and anti-corruption campaigner, was arrested on seven separate occasions between 2012 and 2014 at public events, most of them peaceful gatherings. On each occasion he was taken into custody and subsequently convicted of administrative offences relating to the conduct of public assemblies or disobeying police orders. He complained that the arrests, detentions and convictions were arbitrary and designed to stifle his political activity.
The complaint
- Article 5 — arbitrary arrest and detention;
- Article 6 — unfair administrative proceedings;
- Article 11 — interference with peaceful assembly; and
- Article 18 — that the restrictions were applied for an improper purpose.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the applicant’s arrests and convictions for taking part in peaceful gatherings were not justified and were not necessary in a democratic society, in breach of Article 11. His deprivations of liberty were arbitrary, breaching Article 5 § 1, and the administrative proceedings against him were unfair, breaching Article 6 § 1.
Most importantly, the Grand Chamber examined Article 18, which prohibits restricting Convention rights for any purpose other than those prescribed. It found that, at least in respect of two of the episodes, the authorities’ true purpose in restricting the applicant’s liberty and freedom of assembly had been to suppress political pluralism — a purpose contrary to the very notion of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. The restrictions had therefore been applied for an ulterior motive, in violation of Article 18 taken together with Articles 5 and 11.
The judgment
- violations of Article 5 § 1, Article 6 § 1 and Article 11; and
- a violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 11.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Navalnyy is a landmark on Article 18, the provision that guards against the misuse of restrictions on Convention rights for hidden political ends. It is one of a small but growing group of cases in which the Court has found that a State restricted rights for an ulterior purpose, and it is a central authority on the protection of political opposition and freedom of assembly.
What this means for applicants
- Peaceful assembly is protected under Article 11; repeated arrests of participants in peaceful gatherings are hard to justify.
- Article 18 can expose an ulterior purpose — where legal powers are used to suppress political opposition rather than for their stated aim.
- Patterns of conduct matter; a series of arrests can reveal an improper motive.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Navalnyy v. Russia decide?
The Grand Chamber held that the applicant’s repeated arrests and prosecutions at public gatherings violated Articles 5, 6 and 11, and that in respect of two episodes they also violated Article 18, because the true purpose was to suppress political pluralism.
What is Article 18 of the Convention?
Article 18 prohibits restricting Convention rights for any purpose other than those for which they are permitted. A violation is found where a restriction pursues a hidden, improper aim.
Why is the case significant?
It is a leading authority on Article 18 and on the protection of political opposition and freedom of assembly, finding that the State had used legal powers for an ulterior political purpose.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Del Río Prada v. Spain
- Kudła v. Poland
- Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania
- Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
- Guzzardi v. Italy
- Aksoy v. Turkey
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.