CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF DIMITRIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 23887/17 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 September 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dimitriyev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 August 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 7 .     The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article   11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016). 8.     In the leading case of Novikova and Others (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis , Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 432-42, 7 February 2017). 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11 .     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocol in the light of its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10   April 2018, Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§   34-36, 8   October 2019, Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no.   47598/08, §   21, 28 November 2017, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no. 76204/11, §§   51-75, 4   December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no.   21613/07,§§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the to the delayed review, and the lack of suspensive effect, of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     Some applicants also raised additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 7-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022), ), the Court considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Ms Glinberg (application no.   45677/17) and Mr Gushchin (application no. 46361/17). It further finds reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants (compare, Novikova and Others, cited above, §§   230-33). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well ‑ established case-law of the Court (see the appended table), admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine the remainder of the applications; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds that the finding of a violation of the Convention is sufficient just satisfaction for Ms Glinberg (application no.   45677/17) and Mr Gushchin (application no. 46361/17); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the remaining applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 September 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date Purpose of the demonstration Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Date Name of the court Other relevant information Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     23887/17 06/03/2017 Vasiliy Konstantinovich DIMITRIYEV 1993   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow 22/03/2016; Moscow, Manezhnaya square, solo picketing holding a banner with a word "Надiя" article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB   1,000,   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000 Moscow City Court, 22/09/2016;     Moscow City Court, 06/09/2016 rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings. 3,500     45677/17 21/06/2017 (5 applicants) Anastasiya Sergeyevna ANTONETS 1997   Kirill Sergeyevich BOBRO 1991   Roman Chabiryevich FATULAYEV 1985   Tatyana Vladimirovna GLINBERG 1992   Artem Sergeyevich SAGAYDAKOV 1994   Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich Moscow 18/12/2016, Stavropol, Lenin square; solo picketing in support of women rights; Ms Antonets: Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000,   Mr Bobro, Ms   Glinberg and Mr   Fatulayev: Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000,   Mr Sagaydakov: Article 20.2 §5 of CAO, 30 hours’ community service Stavropol Regional Court 01/02/2017 for all 5 applicants   distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto   Finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Ms Glinberg;   3,000 to each of the remaining applicants     46361/17 22/06/2017 (8 applicants) Ivan Vladimirovich GUSHCHIN 1998   Yelena Dmitriyevna FILIPPOVA 1962   Mikhail Viktorovich KURBATOV 1973   Dmitriy Aleksandrovich LAZARENKO 1978   Igor Vladimirovich MELNIKOV 1963   Olga Andreyevna REZNIKOVA 1983   Sergey Aleksandrovich RUDAMETKIN 1964   Vladimir Mikhaylovich SINITSIN 1952   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow 31/10/2016, Moscow, parking lot of the MEGA-Khimki Mall; solo picketing carried out by long-haul drivers against the toll collection system ‘PLATON’ All 8 applicants were charged under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, sentenced to a fine of RUB 1,000 each Moscow Regional Court, 22/12/2016 (the first, second and sixth applicants);   Moscow Regional Court, 27/12/2016 (the third, fourth and eighth applicants);   Moscow Regional Court, 12/11/2017 (the fifth and seventh applicants) distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in respect of all applicants;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The applicants were arrested on 11/11/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record. All applicants stayed overnight at the police station. No sufficient basis to believe that the detention is necessary and proportionate. The first, second, third, fourth and the sixth applicants were released after their case was heard by the first instance court on 12/11/2016. The fifth and eighth applicants were released on 13/11/2016, 46 hours after their arrest. The complaints were raised in the course of the administrative proceedings.   Specific grievances: Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity, Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO. Finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Mr Gushchin;   4,000 to each of the remaining applicants     31435/20 08/07/2020 Temuuzhin Mandakhovich SAMBUUDAVAAGIYN 1998   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk 31/12/2019, Moscow, solo picket in support of political prisoners article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court, 18/02/2020 rotation - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escort to the police station on 31/12/2019 were not necessary; no evidence that the record of administrative offence could not be drawn on the spot; the app was arrested and detained for over 3 hours, no record of administrative arrest was drawn. Complaint raised before the appeal court. Detention in relation to the event on 07/10/2020 took place between 13/10/2020 and 14/10/2020. The applicant was taken to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record (raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Demonstration in support of LGBT rights in Russia on 07/10/2020, different buildings in Moscow, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, sentenced to 10 days of administrative detention. Final: 03/06/2021, Moscow City Court,     Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - With regard to the event on 07/10/2020, the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 28/05/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     2649/21 08/12/2020 Dmitriy Anatolyevich NEGODIN 1971       12/03/2020 St Petersburg, solo picketing against Constitutional reform   article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000 St Petersburg City Court 09/06/2020 distance requirement - event classified as assembly post facto Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Applicant on 12/03/2020 and 31/01/2021 taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity, detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled; the complaint was raised on appeal in the administrative proceedings against the applicant,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of the administrative proceedings for the applicant’s conviction under Articles 20.2 § 2 and 20.2 § 8 of CAO.,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for participation in unauthorised manifestation on 31/01/2021 for administrative detention of 15 days, St Petersburg City Court, 10/02/2021 (final). 5,000     3970/21 21/12/2020 Yelizaveta Dmitriyevna LOSHAK 1997       (1) 02/06/2020, Moscow, solo picket raising awareness about the excessive use of force by the police;   (2) 30/05/2020, Moscow, solo picket in support of Ilya Azar   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 for each solo demonstration (1) Moscow City Court, 26/11/2020           (2) Moscow City Court, 16/10/2020     rotation - event classified as assembly post facto, in respect of each solo demonstration Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – in the proceedings related to the administrative fine of RUB 10,000, 26/11/2020, Moscow City Court,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (1) arrest and detention on 02/06/2020 from 8.35 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing the record of administrative offence; (2) arrest and detention on 30/05/2020 from 3.40 p.m. to 6.50 p.m. in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing the record of administrative offence (the complaints were raised on appeal). 4,000     19880/21 17/03/2021 Maksim Ildarovich ALIBAYEV 1991   Sozonov Ruslan Vladimirovich Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod, Bolshaya Pokrovskaya street: on 26/07/2020 a solo picket in support of a candidate to the Town Duma; on 15/12/2020 a solo picket in support of Navalnyy article 19.3 § 6 of CAO, administrative detention of   (number of days), 3 and 12 days respectively Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 17/09/2020 and 17/02/2021 respectively   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of both sets of the proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention as an administrative suspect on 15/12/2020 and 23/04/2021: Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO); from 23/04/2021 to 25/04/2021: Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled the complaint raised on appeal, final - 02/06/2021, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court - the administrative proceedings concerning the applicant’s alleged refusal to comply with the order of a police officer,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate enforcement of administrative arrest ordered by the first-instance court. 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.