CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 6 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no.   11408/20 Irma Vasilyevna VELLER against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 18 September 2025, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website .   SUBJECT MATTER The application concern complaints raised under Article 10 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see 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).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Application raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators) 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 complaints under well-established case-law 11408/20* 10/02/2020 Irma Vasilyevna VELLER 1976   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Moscow Moscow 10/08/2019 Solo demonstration in support of LGBT rights article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 14/10/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 10/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence report,   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 the police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based.