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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 OSMOLOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7963/18 and 9 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 Osmolovskiy 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 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 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8.     The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§   51-57, 20   September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirement allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article   6 of the Convention. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken also into account the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022), 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. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 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; Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia , nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies (see further, mutatis mutandis , Nemytov and Others, nos.   1257/21 and 2 others, §§ 136-51, 27 May 2025 in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID-19-related restrictions to assemblies are concerned); Butkevich v.   Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   121-40, 13   February 2018, as to disproportionate measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia , no.   76204/11, §§   51-75, 4   December 2014, Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no.   21613/17, §§   84-97, 3   October 2013, and Nemytov and Others , cited above, 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 lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In application no.   28435/18, the applicant raised a complaint under Article   5 of the Convention in respect of his arrest and detention between 13   and 14 October 2017 as administrative suspect, pending trial. 13.     The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of application no.   28435/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. 14.     Lastly, some applicants raised further additional complaints under various Convention provisions. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019, and Navalnyy and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), as well as to awards made by the Court to some of the applicants earlier (see, for example, Rybakov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 143/18 and 12   others 12 September 2024, and Zhmyrev and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 69927/17 and 12 Others, 12 September 2024), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It further decides to dismiss the remainder of the claims in application no.   28435/18 where claims for just satisfaction were requested from and submitted by the applicant. 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, declares the complaint under Article   5 of the Convention in application no.   28435/18 inadmissible, and decides that there is no need to deal separately with the remainder of the complaints raised by the applicants under various Convention provisions; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings; 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 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims in application no.   28435/18 for just satisfaction. 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 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     7963/18 18/01/2018 Sergey Valeryevich OSMOLOVSKIY 1988   Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich St Petersburg administrative fine of RUB   5,000,     fine of RUB   15,000 20/07/2017, St   Petersburg City Court     08/07/2021, St   Petersburg City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12-14/06/2017 and 31/01/2021-01/02/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station and after compiling offence reports,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 15,000 for participation in a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 31/01/2021 (Art. 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO, final decision on 08/07/2021, St Petersburg City Court) 4,000     28435/18 06/06/2018 Leonid Sergeyevich YARYGIN 1989   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius administrative detention of 8 days 16/12/2017, Tambov Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO for making calls to participate in a series of simultaneous solo demonstrations of 07/10/2017 in support of A. Navalnyy, administrative detention of 8 days, final judgment of 16/12/2017 by the Tambov Regional Court 3,000     28344/20 15/06/2020 Anatoliy Aleksandrovich BOBROV 1993   Stepanova Olga Anatolyevna Moscow administrative fine of RUB   12,000 22/10/2019, Moscow City Court   1,000     7431/21 15/01/2021 Aleksey Yuryevich NURULLIN 1984       fine of RUB   500 16/07/2020, Ulyanovsk Regional Court   1,000     13644/21 12/02/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich GRESKO 1974   Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg administrative detention of 10 days 28/01/2021 Sverdlovsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – calls to participate in a rally in support A. Navalnyy planned for 23/01/2021 in Yekaterinburg - article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, administrative detention of 10 days, final decision 28/01/2021 Sverdlovsk Regional Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO. 5,000     26374/21 08/05/2021 Zakhar Borisovich SARAPULOV 1992   Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia administrative detention of 10 days 02/02/2021 Irkutsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Irkutsk, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision 2/02/2021 Irkutsk Regional Court 5,000     33618/21 04/06/2021 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich VOROBEY 2001   Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia administrative detention of 10 days 29/04/2021 Irkutsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally to support A. Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 in Irkutsk, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Irkutsk Regional Court 29/04/2021 5,000     38156/21 13/07/2021 Vadim Arkadyevich ANANYIN 1972       administrative detention of 4 days     fine of RUB   5,000       administrative detention of 5 days 16/03/2021 Kirov Regional Court     01/03/2021 Kirov Regional Court     18/01/2022 Kirov Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting of the applicant to the police station on 14/01/2022 and his detention there between 09.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. without a record and after the administrative offence report had already been drawn up at his residence place,   Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - disproportionate restriction of his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 CAO for having published in "VKontakte" a call for the participation in the rally "Free Navalnyy" on 23/01/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (conviction on 04/02/2021, appeal on 16/03/2021 and conviction on 14/01/2022, appeal on 18/01/2022).,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - conviction under Art. 20.2 § 1 CAO for having organised and participated in a rally in support of victims of political repressions on 29/10/2020 in Kirov, fine of RUB 5,000, final judgment: Kirov Regional Court 01/03/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO to administrative detention of 5 days for staging, on 06/01/2022, a solo demonstration in Kirov to protest against torture in the Russian penitentiary system and Russian troops in Kazakhstan, final judgment given by the Kirov Regional Court on 18/01/2022 5,000     40950/21 28/07/2021 Dmitriy Olegovich NADEIN 1974   Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Tbilisi, Georgia administrative detention of 10 days 24/02/2021 Irkutsk Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - manifestation in Irkutsk on 23/01/20201, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 9 days, final decision Irkutsk Regional Court 24/02/2021   5,000   3804/22 15/12/2021 Yekaterina Aleksandrovna ASTAFYEVA 1991   Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh administrative fine of RUB   20, 000,     administrative fine of RUB   20,000 15/06/2021 Voronezh Regional Court     22/06/2021 Voronezh Regional Court Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - in two unrelated sets of administrative-offence proceedings the applicant was convicted for calls to participate in rallies to support A.   Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 and 31/01/2021 in Voronezh, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, fines of RUB   20,000, final decisions 15/06/2021 and 22/06/2021 Voronezh Regional Court 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.