CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 janvier 2026

.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 } .sC278ABC0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF SHEVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 4699/23 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 January 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shevchenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 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. Domestic courts found that each of the applicants had staged their solo demonstrations in the vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the official residence of the President of Russia, where public events were prohibited, and convicted them under various CAO provisions. 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; and Pivkina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.   2134/23 and 6 others, § 46, 6 June 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators in connection with their having breached the ban on public events in the vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the residence of the President of Russia. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8.     In the leading case Nemytov and Others v. Russia (nos. 1257/21 and   2   others, §§   159-63, 27   May 2025), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis , Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26   April 2016 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and   14   others, 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 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 in the light of its findings in 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, and Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies. Remaining complaints 12.     Finally, the applicant in application no. 27195/23 raised a further complaint under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. The Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present case, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR   2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, mutatis mutandis , Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 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 admissible the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table), and decides that it that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicant in application no.   27195/23; 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 as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the 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 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   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   Location Date Purpose of the demonstration Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Date Name of the court Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     4699/23 17/01/2023 Aleksandr Vladimirovich SHEVCHENKO 1980 Red Square, Moscow, 24/02/2022, Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000 21/09/2022, Moscow City Court   3,500     27195/23 04/07/2023 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SMELYY 1976   Red Square, Moscow, 16/04/2022, Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 17/03/2023, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 16/04/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     28879/23 13/07/2023 Maria Andreyevna YEVDOKIMOVA 1984   Red Square, Moscow, 14/04/2022, Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 15/03/2023, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 14/04/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     28906/23 14/07/2023 Irina Aleksandrovna BESSCHETNOVA 1978 Red Square, Moscow, 26/02/2022, Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 23/03/2023, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 26/02/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     31566/23 25/07/2023 Yuliya Igorevna YELISEYEVA 1994   Red Square, Moscow, 22/04/2022, Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 27/03/2023, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 22/04/2022 until 23/04/2022 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.