CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } .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 } .s19646158 { width:117.75pt; 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 } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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. 33684/20 Arshak Arturovich MAKICHYAN against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   November 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   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, 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 (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court observes that, in the present case, the applications were lodged more than six months after the final decisions in respect of the applicants’ grievances under Article   11 of the Convention were taken (see the appended table). It must therefore ascertain whether the applicants complied with the six-month rule set out in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention. The Court notes that, as regards applications introduced in 2020, the method of calculation of the six-month rule has been adjusted in order to handle the difficulties to which the global pandemic and widespread lockdown gave rise and to preserve the essence of the right of individual petition under Article   34 of the Convention. In particular, the six-month rule was exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total, whenever a calendar six-month period either started to run or, on the contrary, was due to expire at any time between 16   March and 15   June 2020 (see   Saakashvili v. Georgia   (dec.), nos.   6232/20   and   22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that neither the dates of the introduction of the applications nor the dates of the expiration of the six-month time-limit fall within the above-mentioned period (16   March to 15 June 2020). The exceptional measure is therefore not applicable in the present case   (compare   Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia , no.   53030/19, §   39-40, 9 May 2023; and   Masse v. France   (dec.), no.   47506/20, 25   March 2025). It follows that the applications were lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with 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 11 December 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   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     33684/20 31/07/2020 Arshak Arturovich MAKICHYAN 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Climate change rally   Suvorovskaya square, Moscow   25/10/2019 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative detention for 6   days Moscow City Court 24/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 5.15 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. on 25/10/2019,   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 police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based       35218/20 11/08/2020 Marina Vladimirovna MALAKHOVA 1980 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of I.   Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/01/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 12.45 p.m. to 10.25 p.m. on 12/06/2019,   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 police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based     37573/20 18/08/2020 Vadim Pavlovich LUKASHEVICH 1963 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 22/01/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 2.10 p.m. to 7.57 p.m. on 27/07/2019,   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 - impossibility to cross-examine police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based       37612/20 18/08/2020 Aleksandr Nikolayevich PAVELYEV 1990   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally in support of I. Golunov   Moscow   12/06/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 10/02/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 1.27 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. on 12/06/2019,   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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based       49799/20 20/10/2020 Yekaterina Vasilyevna KHARLANOVA 1989 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 20/01/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 5.00 p.m. to 11.45 p.m. on 27/07/2019,   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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based       51101/20 03/11/2020 Aleksey Igorevich SUDILOVSKIY 1986 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Moscow City Court 04/02/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 8.40 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 6.00 p.m. on 28/07/2019,   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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based