Case of Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia (Applications nos. 2623/16 and 2299/16)
A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.
100. The right to freedom of assembly, one of the foundations of a democratic society, is subject to a number of exceptions which must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established. When examining whether restrictions on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention can be considered “necessary in a democratic society” the Contracting States enjoy a certain but not unlimited margin of appreciation. It is, in any event, for the Court to give a final ruling on the restriction’s compatibility with the Convention and this is to be done by assessing the circumstances of a particular case (see Kudrevičius and Others, cited above, § 142, and Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, § 238, 20 September 2018).
104. The Court reiterates that democracy constitutes a fundamental element of the “European public order”. In view of the very clear link between the Convention and democracy, no one should be authorised to rely on the Convention’s provisions in order to weaken or destroy the ideals and values of a democratic society. Consequently, in order to guarantee the stability and effectiveness of a democratic system, the State may be required to take specific measures to protect itself. Every time a State intends to rely on the principle of “a democracy capable of defending itself” in order to justify interference with individual rights, it must carefully evaluate the scope and consequences of the measure under consideration, in order to ensure that the aforementioned balance is achieved (see, for example, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, §§ 98-100, ECHR 2006‑IV, and Petropavlovskis v. Latvia, no. 44230/06, § 72, ECHR 2015).
119. As for the existence of a “pressing social need”, the Court considers that calls for expressing the superiority of one nation over another nation or aggressive “war propaganda” messages aimed, in the particular circumstances of this case, at expressing support for unrecognised separatist entities and their paramilitary arms in eastern Ukraine have no place in a democratic society.
121. As to the level of the threat to public safety and security, the Court notes that that consideration was subjected to detailed scrutiny by the domestic authorities and, in particular, the domestic courts; the latter’s assessment was that the events for which authorisations were sought by the applicants constituted a high risk to public order and safety. The Court notes that their assessment was based on specific and precise circumstances; their assessment was not merely theoretical or superficial. Within the specific context of the present case – in particular, the real risk of disorder, and the legitimate reasons to fear for Latvia’s own security, territorial integrity, and democratic order in view of the Russian Federation having acquired military and political control over Crimea (including the city of Sevastopol), and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the Donbass area of eastern Ukraine in 2014 (see paragraph 111 above) – the Court considers that the domestic courts’ assessment of the level of the threat posed by the impugned events was sufficiently reasoned (to the extent permitted by the interests of national security).
122. Consequently, the Court – having verified the existence of relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the ban on the planned events for 9 May 2014 and 23 September 2014 – considers that the interference with the applicants’ rights met a “pressing social need” and was “proportionate to the aims pursued”. It follows that the banning of the impugned events may be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2.
123. … The Court finds that here has been no violation of Article 11 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 10 in the present case.