On 27 June 2023 the European Court of Human Rights (Chamber) delivered its Judgment in Bryan and Others v. Russia (Application no. 22515/14), which concerned the 2013 attempted protest action by Greenpeace & others at the Prirazlomnaya offshore oil drilling platform, located in the Pechora Sea within the exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”) of the Russian Federation, including their subsequent arrest and detention. The applicants complaint concerned a breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The situation had also given rise to separate arbitration between the Netherlands and Russia under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as a settlement agreement (see previous reporting and The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v. Russia)).
In Bryan and Others v. Russia, observations were submitted by the applicants and Russia. Comments were also submitted by the Netherlands, Sweden and Ukraine, whose nationals were involved, as well as two NGOs given leave to intervene, Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) and ARTICLE 19. The nationals of Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom were involved, but these governments chose to not submit any comments.
The Judgment in Bryan and Others v. Russia found:
“1. Holds, unanimously, that the applicants were within the jurisdiction of Russia for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention;
Bryan and Others v. Russia, Judgment, para 105.
2. Holds, unanimously, that the applicants remain victims of the alleged violations within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and that it has jurisdiction, under Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 3 (a) of the Convention, to deal with the applicants’ complaints;
3. Holds, unanimously, that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints in so far as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
4. Declares, unanimously, the application admissible;
5. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;
6. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
7. Holds, by five votes to two, that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.
A Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judge Serghides is in favour of all the operative elements of the Judgment, but dissents on an element of the reasoning provided for not granting the applicants any monetary amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
De Maribus 