CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 28044/20 Yuriy Andreyevich POLETAYEV against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   June 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in applications nos. 28044/20 and 33682/20, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies were communicated to the Russian Government. In all applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention The applicants complained about the termination of their participation in public assemblies, including by way of their arrest, and about subsequent administrative-offence proceedings against them. The Court reiterates that, as a rule, the six-month time-limit runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Varnava and Others v. Türkiye [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, §   157, ECHR 2009). In cases under the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the appeal judgment must be considered when applying both the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month rule outlined in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15, §§ 41-51, 31 January 2017). The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints were lodged with the Court more than six months following the final domestic decisions adopted in the administrative-offence proceedings (see the appended table). It follows that the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention has not been respected. As regards the exceptional extension adopted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court reiterates that this three-month grace period applies only where the six-month time-limit either began or expired between 16 March and 15 June 2020 (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022). In the present cases both the final decision and the introduction of the application fall outside that window; the COVID-19 extension is therefore inapplicable (see Masse v. France (dec.), no. 47506/20, §§ 20-32, 25 March 2025). Accordingly, the applications must be rejected as lodged out of time under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     28044/20 26/06/2020 Yuriy Andreyevich POLETAYEV 1987   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 18/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police office in excess of 3 hours on 03/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     33682/20 31/07/2020 Kirill Sergeyevich CHEREMISIN 1993   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 24/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station from 4.30 a.m. on 03/08/2019 until 1.30 a.m. on 04/08/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based.     47359/20 02/10/2020 Irina Petrovna AFANASYEVA 1954   Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Protest against construction of a combustion plant   Osinovo, Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 22/01/2020