The European Court of Human Rights finds Russia in Violation of Greenpeace Activists’ Freedom of Expression and Right to Liberty and Security

28-06-2023 

Sofía Medina Sánchez 

International Justice and Human Rights Researcher,

Global Human Rights Defence.

On the 27th of June 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued the Bryan and Others v. Russia decision, ruling that the arrest and detention of Greenpeace activists from Artic Sunrise protesting at Pechora Sea oil drilling platform was arbitrary and illegal. 

The principal facts are the following. In 2013, 30 Greenpeace activists conducted a protest at the Russian offshore oil-drilling platform Prirazlomnaya. During the protest, two of the activists climbed the platform after launching dinghies from the Arctic Sunrise, a vessel sailing under the Netherlands’ flag. The Russian coastguards towed the vessel to the port of Murmansk with the activists on board and, on arrival to the port, arrested and detained them on charges of piracy. These charges were changed to hooliganism and, later, the proceedings were discontinued due to amnesty. 

The court examined first certain aspects regarding the jurisdiction. It decided that it could deal with the case because the compensation received by the activists as a result of a settlement agreement between the Netherlands and Russia in arbitration proceedings under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) had no acknowledgement of a breach of the activists’ rights. Therefore, they could still claim a violation under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). 

The ECtHR found that the period under which the Arctic Sunrise had been under Russian control and until its arrival at the Murmansk port constituted a deprivation of the activists’ liberty. Moreover, the fact that the period of detention was completely unrecorded (by holding no data such as date, time, and location of detention) amounted to a grave violation of the activist’s rights under Article 5. The detention was considered “arbitrary” due to the confusion over the charges brought against the applicants and the reasons for their detention. 

Lastly, the court found that the detention constituted an interference with the activists’ freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR) on a matter of significant social interest, namely the environmental effects of oil drilling and exploitation. Following from the findings under Article 5, the limitation was not prescribed by domestic Russian law either. Consequently, there was a violation of Article 10 too. Regarding just satisfaction, the court held that the finding of a violation was sufficient for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. 

Sources and Further Readings: 

Case of Bryan and Others v. Russia (Application no. 22515/14), Judgement, Third Section, 27th June 2023: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng/#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-225440%22]

Press Release issued by the Registrar to the Court, ECHR 196 (2023), 27 June 2023: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press/#{%22fulltext%22:[%2222515/14%22]