CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sAB1BA056 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8780D7B2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .sE3081864 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sE408B2F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s7F1927B3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:6pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s3B53EBD4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } .sC83985A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#222222 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF74FAE9B { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.5pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .sB95D6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#c00000 } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C6973B8 { width:5.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; 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 } .s7368EE06 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; 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 } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADCD53C { width:135.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } THIRD SECTION CASE OF NEMYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1257/21 and 2 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Art 11 • Freedom of peaceful assembly • Applicants arrested, prosecuted and sanctioned with detention or a fine in administrative-offence proceedings for participating in public events or solo demonstrations in breach of regional Covid-19 pandemic related blanket bans and/or restrictions in 2020 and 2021 • Interferences imposed in context of pressing social need of protecting individual and public health • Absence of relevant and sufficient reasons • Failure to carry out proportionality assessment • Sanctions capable of a “chilling effect” • Wide margin of appreciation overstepped • Interferences not “necessary in a democratic society” Art 10 • Freedom of expression • First applicant’s administrative conviction in relation to staging a solo demonstration for failing to comply with rules of conduct during a state of high alert • First applicant exempted from paying imposed fine on account of having served part of his detention •Interference proportionate to the aim pursued • Wide margin of appreciation not overstepped Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Art 11 • Freedom of peaceful assembly • First applicant’s administrative conviction for participating in unauthorised solo demonstrations staged by way of rotation and for staging a solo demonstration in the Red Square of Moscow in breach of the general ban on holding public events there • Respective sanctions of detention and a fine capable of a “chilling effect” • Failure to carry out proportionality assessment • Interferences not “necessary in a democratic society” Art 5 § 1 • Unlawful deprivation of liberty Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Impartial tribunal • Absence of prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings Art 2 P7 • Review of conviction • Lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against administrative detention   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 27 May 2025 FINAL   27/08/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nemytov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   1257/21, 3244/21 and 46231/21) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Russian nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles   5, 6, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8, as well as under Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention, and to declare the remainder of applications nos.   1257/21 and 3244/21 inadmissible; the observations submitted by the respondent Government in applications nos.   1257/21 and 3244/21, and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by Human Rights Centre Memorial and OVD ‑ Info, which were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; the decision by the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule   29   §   2 of the Rules of the Court (see Kutayev v.   Russia , no.   17912/15, §§   5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 6 May 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications mainly concern the applicants’ complaints under Articles   10 and 11 of the Convention that disproportionate measures were taken against them in connection with (i)     their participation in various public events in breach of COVID-19-related restrictions in 2020 and early 2021, and (ii) the first applicant’s participation in a series of solo demonstrations staged by several participants in turn. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ names, years of birth and representatives’ names are set out in the appended table. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr M. Vinogradov, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. the applicants’ prosecution in connection with breaches of COVID-19-related restrictions Background information 5.     The global context pertaining to the spread of coronavirus (COVID ‑ 19) and the response to it in 2020 is summarised in Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC] (no. 21881/20, §§   11-18 and 64-74, 27 November 2023). On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. 6.     On 31   January 2020 COVID-19 was detected for the first time on Russian territory. From early March 2020 the number of confirmed infections began to rise, prompting the authorities, particularly those in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, to introduce various measures to contain the spread of the virus across Russian regions (for the applicable legal provisions, see paragraphs   48-54 below). 7.     By Decree no.   12-UМ of 5   March 2020 the mayor of Moscow introduced a “state of high alert” ( режим повышенной готовности ) in response to the spread of COVID-19 and introduced various restrictions (see paragraph   56 below). The decree, as further amended and in force by the time of the first and second applicants’ static demonstrations held in late May 2020, prohibited, among other things, “sports, entertainment, public and other mass events” in Moscow (for a summary of Decree no.   12-UM as in force at the relevant time, see paragraphs   57 and   59 below). 8.     By Decree no.   121 of 13 March 2020, “On measures to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in St Petersburg”, the St   Petersburg City Administration declared a “state of high alert” and introduced various restrictions in the city, including a ban on public events (see paragraph   62 below). 9.     From early June 2020 several restrictions were gradually eased in Moscow (see paragraph   60 below) and, as of late May, in St Petersburg (see paragraph 63 below). 10 .     On 5   May 2023 the WHO lifted the alert classifying COVID-19 as a public health emergency of international concern. 11 .     It appears that the ban on public events remained in effect in Moscow until at least summer 2023. In St Petersburg, the ban on public events, amended in April 2022 to allow the regional consumer protection authority ( Роспотребнадзор – “Rospotrebnadzor”) to make exceptions, was extended until the end of 2025. Static solo demonstration of 26   May 2020 (Mr Nemytov, application   no.   1257/21) Available statistics on the health situation in Moscow in May 2020 12 .     According to publicly available official statistics, by 29   April   2020 the number of recorded cases of infection in Moscow had exceeded 50,000, and the number of deaths from COVID-19 reached 500. By 25   May 2020 the number of registered deaths from COVID-19 had exceeded 2,000. Moscow was the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak in Russia at that time, accounting for the vast majority of confirmed cases in the country. The first applicant’s solo demonstration and ensuing proceedings 13.     On 26   May 2020 Mr Nemytov (the first applicant) staged a static solo demonstration, holding a placard reading “Free [V.]” near the Moscow Department of the Interior, to protest against the criminal prosecution of Mr   V., an administrator of the popular Telegram channel “Police Ombudsman”, which had exposed police brutality. 14 .     The first applicant was immediately arrested by the police, escorted to a police station and detained for eighteen hours as an administrative suspect. On the same date police officers drew up an administrative-offence record under Article 20.2   §   8 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”), for a repeated breach of the rules for holding public events. The record stated that the applicant had participated in a solo public event for which no approval from the authorities was needed, and at a place where such events were not prohibited. However, he had held it in breach of the requirements of Decree no.   12-UM (as in force at the material time), which had introduced “self ‑ isolation” in Moscow and a ban on any public events between 5   March and 31   May 2020. By his actions, the first applicant had also breached one of the orders ( предписания ) of 29   March 2020 issued by the regional office of Rospotrebnadzor (see paragraph   58 below). 15 .     On 27   May 2020 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow convicted the first applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. The court referred to the escort and administrative ‑ arrest records, the administrative-offence record, the arresting officers’ reports, photographic evidence, a letter from the local authorities clarifying that no notification had been submitted in relation to a public event planned for 26 May 2020, and an administrative-offence record relating to the first applicant’s previous conviction under Article   20.2   §   5 of the CAO for breaching the rules for holding public events. The court found that the first applicant had taken part in a solo public event in disregard of the requirements of Decree no.   12-UM introducing a “state of high alert” in Moscow, and that he had also breached Order no.   1П of 29   March 2020 issued by the regional office of Rospotrebnadzor (see paragraph   58 below). 16 .     In an appeal against his conviction, the first applicant argued, in particular, that Article   20.2 of the CAO was a blanket provision and referred to the procedure for holding public events set out in the Public Events Act (Federal Law no.   54-FZ of 19 June 2004 – “the PEA”). However, charges had been brought against him for allegedly breaching different provisions, namely Decree no.   12-UМ and Order no.   1П of 29   March 2020, which prohibited public events in the city, including solo demonstrations. A state of high alert was not among the circumstances allowing Moscow’s executive authorities to change the rules for holding public events within the meaning of section 1 of the PEA (see paragraph   46 below). Order no.   1П had not been published and, in any event, constituted health regulations. Liability for a breach of such regulations was governed by a different provision, namely Article   6.3 of the CAO (see paragraph   77 below). Referring to clarifications issued by the Supreme Court of Russia on 21   April 2020 (see paragraph   81 below), he argued that a violation of the ban on public events introduced by Article   2 of Decree   no.   12-UM should be examined under Article   20.6.1 of the CAO (see paragraph   78 below) as a breach of the rules of conduct during a state of high alert, admitting that his actions could arguably fall under that provision or Article   3.18.1   §   2 of the Moscow Code of Administrative Offences (see paragraph   79 below). Lastly, he argued that his arrest and detention had been excessive and unjustified, as no real damage had been caused by his actions. 17 .     On 29   May 2020 the Moscow City Court reclassified the charges against the first applicant and convicted him of an offence under Article   20.6.1   §   1 of the CAO (failure to comply with rules of conduct during a state of high alert). The court found the evidence collected in the case admissible and endorsed the lower court’s finding that he had held a public event in the form of a static solo demonstration with a thematic placard. Referring to provisions of domestic law concerning the declaration of a state of high alert, namely Federal Law no.   52-FZ of 30 March 1999 (“the Sanitary Welfare Act”), Federal Law no.   68-FZ of 21 December 1994 (“the Emergency Protection Act”) and Government Decree no.   417 of 2   April 2020 (see paragraphs   48-54 below), the appellate court reiterated that Decree no.   12-UM, issued by the mayor of Moscow in line with those provisions, had introduced a ban on public events until 31   May 2020, which applied to “pickets” (one of the forms of public events under section 2(1) of the PEA). Accordingly, and in line with the relevant clarifications by the Supreme Court of Russia (see paragraph   81 below), the court found that the first applicant’s solo demonstration had amounted to a failure to comply with rules of conduct during a state of high alert within the meaning of Article   20.6.1 of the CAO (see paragraph   78 below). Having regard to his previous administrative conviction, the appellate court sentenced the first applicant to an administrative fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB – approximately 256   euros (EUR) at the relevant time), but he was exempted from paying it on account of having already served part of his administrative detention. He was released the same day. Static solo demonstration of 26   May 2020 (Mr Azar, application no.   3244/21) 18 .     On 26   May 2020 Mr Azar (the second applicant), a journalist with Novaya Gazeta and an elected member of the Khamovniki district council of Moscow, posted a message on his social media that he was going to stage a solo demonstration in support of Mr V. and the first applicant following the latter’s arrest earlier that day (see paragraphs 13 et seq. above). He stressed in his message that no assembly could be held because of the COVID-19 outbreak but stated that he considered a solo demonstration to be safer than going shopping, using the Moscow Metro or going to a public services centre. He added that if his colleagues wished to join him, they should respect social distancing and maintain at least 2   metres of distance in a “picket line” (a queue for staging solo demonstrations in turn). 19 .     On the same day he staged his demonstration, holding placards reading “Free V.” and “Free Nemytov”. A photograph admitted to the administrative-offence case file shows him standing alone in front of the entrance to the headquarters of the Moscow Department of the Interior. Five minutes later he was arrested, escorted to a police station and detained until 8.20 p.m. that evening for the “drawing up [of] administrative material”. 20.     According to the administrative-offence record drawn up in respect of him under the CAO, the second applicant took part in a public event in the form of a solo demonstration (for which no approval of the authorities was needed and at a place where such events were not prohibited), in breach of the ban on holding public events under Decree no. 12- UM. 21 .     Based on photographic evidence and the arresting officers’ reports stating that the second applicant had held a solo demonstration, on 28   May 2020 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the administrative ‑ offence record. Referring to Presidential Decree no. 316 of 11   May 2020, which granted regional authorities the discretion to extend restrictive measures in response to the spread of COVID-19 based on the epidemiological situation in a given region (see paragraph   55 below), and the ban on public events in Moscow between 5   March and 31   May 2020, introduced by Decree no.   12 ‑ UM, the court found that the second applicant had held a “picket” in breach of that ban. Referring to the second applicant’s previous conviction for breaching the rules for holding public events, the court held that his actions constituted an offence under Article   20.2   §   8 of the CAO (repeated breach of the rules for holding public events) and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. 22.     In an appeal against his conviction, the second applicant argued, like the first applicant (see paragraph   16 above), that Article   20.2 of the CAO was a blanket provision and referred to the procedure for holding public events set out in the PEA, and that a state of high alert was not among the circumstances allowing the Moscow executive authorities to change the rules for holding public events. In the absence of a federal law restricting solo demonstrations, Decree no.   12-UM could not be relied upon, as it did not set out rules for holding public events. Referring to clarifications issued by the Supreme Court of Russia on 21   April 2020 (see paragraph   81 below), he admitted that his actions could arguably fall under that provision or under Article   3.18.1   §   2 of the Moscow Code of Administrative Offences (see paragraph   79 below). He further argued that administrative detention should not have been applied to him, as he had to take care of his minor daughter, that his arrest and detention on 26   May 2020 had been unjustified and excessive and that his solo demonstration had not caused any adverse consequences. 23 .     On 5   June 2020 the Moscow City Court examined the second applicant’s appeal. The court heard B., Head of the Directorate for Public Order in Moscow, who testified that on 26   May 2020 he had seen five to ten people standing near the second applicant with similar banners and waiting their turn to stage similar demonstrations. He stated that they had subsequently taken the second applicant’s place to stage their static demonstrations. Referring to the second applicant’s Facebook post, B.’s statement to the court and photographs of two other participants showing them “in the immediate vicinity” of the second applicant (not submitted to the Court), the appellate court concluded that the second applicant had taken part in a group event – that is, several “pickets” clearly having the same aim and organisation – which had not been notified to the authorities, in breach of the PEA. The court held that this constituted an offence punishable under Article   20.2   §   5 of the CAO (breach of the rules for holding public events). It considered that the arresting officers’ reports assessing the second applicant’s actions as a “solo demonstration” did not contradict B.’s statements, as the officers had left immediately after the arrest. The court further reiterated that a ban on public events in Moscow, introduced by Decree no.   12-UM, had been in force at the material time. It assessed the second applicant’s arrest and escorting to the police station as lawful, as he had taken part in a public event in a public area, meaning it had been “objectively impossible” for the police to have drawn up an administrative ‑ offence record on the spot. The appellate court upheld the second applicant’s conviction under Article   20.2   §   8 of the CAO and reduced his sentence to ten days’ administrative detention. 24.     The second applicant applied for a review of his conviction. On 10   August 2020 the Second Cassation Court of Moscow upheld it on review. Assembly of 31   January 2021 (Ms Burma, application no.   46231/11) Background information 25 .     As it appears from publicly available sources, the first COVID-19 case was registered in St Petersburg in early March 2020. From 2020 to 2021 the city remained one of the most affected places in Russia. Having started with a strict lockdown between March and May 2020 (see paragraph   62 below), the authorities then eased and tightened various measures to contain the spread of infection during that period (see paragraph   63 below). In particular, in late autumn 2020 St   Petersburg saw a significant rise in daily infections, leading to the tightening of several restrictions between 1   November 2020 and 16   January 2021. In January 2021 the city continued to see a significant increase in COVID-19 cases, with authorities registering about 3,000 new infections per day that month. With seventy and sixty-nine COVID-19 deaths registered on 27 and 28 January 2021 respectively, the city had one of the highest rates of registered COVID-19-related deaths in Russian regions at the time. In the last week of January, the city’s Interdepartmental Coordination Council for Combating COVID-19 reported a steady downward trend in the spread of infection, which was also reflected in a decrease in the number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. By 30   January 2021 the authorities had eased some of the restrictions (see paragraph   64 below) but reiterated their call for caution and adherence to public health measures. 26.     On 31   January 2021 several thousand people took part in unauthorised protests at various locations in St Petersburg to support the opposition leader, Mr Alexey Navalnyy, who had been arrested and detained upon returning to Russia from Germany on 17   January 2021, where he had undergone medical treatment after an attempted poisoning. Several roads in the centre of St   Petersburg were blocked by the police and hundreds of participants were arrested. The third applicant’s arrest and prosecution 27 .     According to the domestic findings and the third applicant’s additional statement of appeal (see paragraph 36 below), at about 4 p.m. on 31   January 2021 Ms Burma (the third applicant) took part in a gathering of about one hundred people on Zagorodnyy Avenue in the centre of St   Petersburg, near the Zvenigorodskaya metro station, held in support of A.   Navalnyy. 28 .     In her application form and some of her submissions at domestic level, the third applicant stated that at 5   p.m. that day she had been walking home along Zagorodnyy Avenue “using means of health protection”, that is, wearing a surgical mask. Since the entrance to the Zvenigorodskaya metro station had been blocked, she had asked some police officers how to bypass the cordon. The police had immediately arrested her without explanation and placed her in a police van with a number of other people. 29 .     At 6.30 p.m. that evening she was transferred to a police station (as confirmed by an escort record). According to the arrest record, she remained in detention until 4.30 p.m. the following day, to ensure the correct and timely processing of her case. 30 .     At 9.30 p.m. on 31   January 2021 the police officers drew up an administrative-offence record under Article 20.2.2   §   1 of the CAO, for participation in a mass simultaneous gathering of citizens in public places not constituting a public event and held in breach of health regulations (see paragraph   76 below). According to the record, the third applicant participated in a gathering “not constituting a public event” of about one hundred citizens. The participants failed to maintain a distance of at least 1   metre, in breach of orders issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Russia, which had introduced social distancing requirements of 1   metre and between 1.5 and 2 metres respectively (Orders nos. 9 and 15 of 30   March and 22   May 2020, see paragraphs   65 and 66 below). 31 .     The applicant provided a handwritten “explanation”, in which she agreed with the content of the administrative-offence record. In her additional explanations attached to the record, she stated that she had been walking along Zagorodnyy Avenue and had asked a police officer for directions, as the street had been cordoned off. After walking a few more metres she had been arrested by some police officers who had neither introduced themselves nor explained the reason for the arrest. 32 .     At 4.30 p.m. on 1   February 2021 the Nevskiy District Court of St   Petersburg convicted the third applicant as charged and sentenced her to ten days’ administrative detention, specifying that it was to be calculated from 6.30 p.m. on 31   January 2021. Her conviction was based on the administrative-offence record, the arresting officer’s report and documents provided by two other police officers, that is, two identical pre-printed forms containing formulaic references to the same provisions of domestic law as the administrative-offence record, on which only each officer’s details and the third applicant’s name had been handwritten. None of the officers were heard by the court. The District Court also referred to video footage of the gathering, without describing its content in the judgment or specifying whether the third applicant had been filmed. The court considered that her explanations (see paragraph   31 above) and court testimony to the effect that she had not taken part in the public event contradicted the above-mentioned evidence. 33 .     Referring to sections 10(2), 29(3) and 50(2) of the Sanitary Welfare Act (see paragraphs 48-50 below), the District Court noted that, under Government Decree no.   715 of 1   December 2004, COVID-19 was classified as a disease “representing a danger to others”. The court further noted that, in response to the “complex epidemiological situation” caused by the spread of COVID-19, State authorities had implemented measures to contain the epidemic. In particular, Order no. 9 of 30 March 2020 of the Chief Medical Officer of Russia had introduced a 1-metre social distancing requirement (paragraph   6.2, see paragraph   65 below). Under paragraph   4.4 of Order no.   15 of 22 May 2020, establishing health and epidemiological regulations (no. СП 3/1.3597/20) for preventing the spread of COVID-19 (see paragraph   66 below) and introducing measures aimed at “breaking” the infection transmission mechanism, individuals were required to follow personal hygiene rules (handwashing, using antiseptics and wearing medical masks and gloves) and maintain social distancing of 1.5 to 2 metres. The court established that no fewer than 100 people had participated in an “action” ( акция ) in support of A.   Navalnyy, which had not been a public event; that they had failed to keep 1 metre from each other; and that the third applicant had been a voluntary participant. Referring to the Constitutional Court’s decision no.   1721-O of 24   October 2013 (see paragraph   80 below) and without giving further details, the court concluded that the third applicant’s participation in the gathering of about one hundred citizens in a public area ( в общественном месте ), in breach of the above-cited parts of the orders issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Russia on 30   March and 22   May 2020, constituted a breach of Article   20.2.2   §   1 of the CAO. Lastly, when deciding on the applicable sanction, the court referred to the nature of the offence, the third applicant’s conduct (no details were given on either point) and her failure to “realise” the unlawfulness of her actions and their consequences. It also referred to the need to prevent future administrative offences by her and others. 34.     The third applicant started serving her sentence of administrative detention immediately. 35 .     On 7   February 2021 she lodged a brief appeal against her conviction, challenging it as unlawful and ill-founded, without providing further details, on the grounds that she had not taken part in the gathering but had merely been passing by. 36 .     On 16   March 2021 the third applicant lodged a more detailed appeal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that she had breached the social distancing requirement. She also argued that she had been using “means of health protection” to prevent the spread of COVID-19. She stressed that the first-instance court had failed to apply domestic law correctly and explain why the event had not constituted a “meeting” within the meaning of the PEA. It had further failed to specify any action by her that had caused obstructions to pedestrians or a breach of health regulations. Lastly, she argued that the court should not have found her liable for breaching the measures specified in the regulations for preventing the spread of COVID-19 (Order no. 15 of 22   May 2020 of the Chief Medical Officer of Russia, see paragraph   66 below), as, under those regulations, the local Rospotrebnadzor – not individuals – was responsible for their implementation. The third applicant further submitted, relying on Article 11 of the Convention and Article 31 of the Constitution, that she had participated in a peaceful rally and that the authorities had failed to demonstrate that she had infringed the rights of others, disrupted traffic or disturbed public order. The absolute ban on public events in St Petersburg, introduced under the pretext of preventing the spread of COVID-19, was in itself a disproportionate measure. It pursued the aim of punishing people, including the applicant, for their political views. The authorities had applied it selectively. Indeed, at the time of the events, shopping malls, theatres, restaurants and sports facilities had been open in Russia, particularly in St   Petersburg, and various “non-political” mass events had been held. A street protest had been no more dangerous in terms of the potential spread of COVID-19 than various indoor events. On the contrary, the escorting of dozens of arrested rally participants to police stations in overcrowded police vans, in violation of basic social distancing and public health requirements, had posed a more serious risk of spreading the infection. In the third applicant’s view, her arrest and detention had been unnecessary and disproportionate, having a chilling effect on her and other protestors. Lastly, the sanction of administrative detention – intended to be exceptional by nature – had been disproportionately applied to her, despite her peaceful conduct and the absence of any evidence that her actions had caused harm. 37 .     On 16   March 2021 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the third applicant’s conviction on appeal, citing the same provisions as the lower court (see paragraph   32 above) and reiterating that the Sanitary Welfare Act aimed to ensure the health and epidemiological welfare of citizens. Under section   10 of that Act, citizens were required to comply with health legislation and orders from the responsible authorities. The court upheld the lower court’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of the third applicant having committed the offence and deemed her arrest and detention lawful and well ‑ founded. It noted that she had been arrested on the street, making it impossible for the police to have drawn up an administrative-offence record on the spot. The court further rejected her arguments based on Article   11 of the Convention, stating that the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Articles   10 and 11 could be restricted under Article 10 § 2 and Article 11 § 2 respectively. The “ban on assemblies” and “health and epidemiological requirements [imposed] on the population” had been enacted in connection with the state of high alert in St Petersburg. The state of high alert, in turn, had been introduced to prevent the spread of COVID-19, to protect people’s lives and health. In the court’s view, this provided a “sufficient basis for the restriction of the right to freedom of expression”. Lastly, the appellate court upheld the sanction imposed on the third applicant, concluding that there were no grounds to consider the offence insignificant or to exempt her from serving her sentence on that basis. Other events in case of Mr Nemytov Series of solo demonstrations staged on a rotation basis 38 .     On 5   June 2020 the first applicant Mr Nemytov and about ten other people took turns staging solo demonstrations in front of the Department of the Interior building at 38 Petrovka Street in Moscow, protesting against the second applicant’s arrest and administrative prosecution (see paragraphs   19 et seq. above). The first applicant, who started demonstrating at 5.05 p.m., was arrested twelve minutes later and escorted to a police station so that “administrative material” could be drawn up. He remained at the police station until his release at 8.58 p.m. that evening. 39 .     An administrative-offence record was drawn up on 22   July 2020, referring to Article   20.2   §   8 of the CAO. According to the record, the first applicant took part in a mass public event between 5 p.m. and 9   p.m. on 5   June 2020, with no fewer than ten other participants. Calls to participate in the event were posted on Twitter (the record cited a specific post) and could have been seen by an unlimited number of people. The participants with placards “replaced each other” near the entrance to the building, taking turns at intervals of five to twenty minutes. The record further cited the ban on public events introduced in Moscow in response to the spread of COVID-19 (see paragraph   59 below), noted that the authorities had not been notified of the event and concluded that participation in it had been unlawful. 40 .     On 2   October 2020 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow considered that the first applicant had taken part in a group event in the form of a “picket”, which had required prior notification to the authorities. This requirement had not been met, in breach of section   8 of the PEA. The court found it “sufficiently evident” that the participants’ actions had had the same aims and organisation, with the use of recognisable campaign materials, such as placards and banners, which some participants had exchanged with one another. Furthermore, the participants had made collective demands and appeals. The court also determined that staging the solo demonstrations had been a “means of concealing the collective nature” of the public event and that the participants, including the first applicant, had failed to discontinue their unlawful actions despite police warnings. The court accordingly convicted the first applicant of repeatedly breaching the rules for holding public events (Article   20.2   §   8 the CAO) and sentenced him to an administrative fine of RUB   150,000. 41.     In an appeal, the first applicant argued, in particular, that his conviction had no legal basis, as he had staged a static solo demonstration that had not required notification. Referring to video footage of his demonstration and arrest, he argued that no one else had been picketing at the same time as him, and that no one with “campaign materials” had been nearby. He had only talked to a journalist, to whom he had explained the purpose of his demonstration. The police had not given any orders that he could have disobeyed, and the authorities had failed to display the requisite degree of tolerance towards the demonstration. 42 .     On 18   January 2021 the Moscow City Court upheld the first applicant’s conviction, endorsing and reiterating the lower court’s reasoning. 43 .     On 10   March 2021 the first applicant paid the fine. Solo demonstration of 25   June 2020 and subsequent proceedings 44 .     On 25   June 2020 the first applicant staged a solo demonstration in Red Square in Moscow against amendments to the Constitution. His demonstration was discontinued by the police and he was escorted to a police station, where he was detained overnight. The next day the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found him guilty of holding a public event in a prohibited manner, namely in the vicinity of the residence of the President of Russia. He was convicted of repeatedly breaching the rules for holding public events (Article   20.2   §   8 of the CAO) and sentenced to twenty days’ administrative detention. On 30   June 2020 the Moscow City Court upheld his conviction. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT Domestic material Legal provisions and practice on public events and sanitary emergency General legal framework on public events 45 .     For a summary of the provisions of domestic law establishing the procedure for holding public events, including static solo demonstrations (solo “pickets”), see Novikova and Others v. Russia (nos. 25501/07 and 4   others, §§   49-59, 26 April 2016). For legal definitions of the various types of public events contained in section 2 of the Public Events Act (Federal Law no.   54-FZ of 19   June 2004 – “the PEA”), see Dianova and Others v.   Russia (nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, §   33, 10   September 2024). 46 .     Under section 1(1) of the PEA, legislation on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and pickets is based on the provisions of the Constitution, universally recognised principles and standards of international law and international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party. It includes the PEA itself and other legislative acts of the Russian Federation related to ensuring the right to hold public events. In cases provided for by the PEA, regulatory legal acts ( нормативные правовые акты ) concerning the conditions for holding assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, marches and pickets are issued by the President of Russia and the government. They are adopted and issued by the State authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. 47 .     Under section 8(1) of the PEA, a public event may be held in any suitable location, provided that it does not create a risk of building collapse or any other danger to participants’ safety. Access to certain locations may be banned or restricted in circumstances specified by federal law. Legal provisions cited by the parties (a)    Sanitary Welfare Act 48 .     Federal Law no. 52-FZ of 20   March 1999 on the Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of the Population (“the Sanitary Welfare Act”) provides that citizens must abide by health legislation, as well as decrees and orders of the federal health and epidemiological supervision authorities. They cannot take actions in violation of other citizens’ rights to health protection and a favourable living environment (section   10). It is within the competence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to introduce and discontinue lockdown restrictions based on proposals and instructions of chief medical officers and their deputies (section   6). 49 .     Under section 29(1), measures to prevent the occurrence and spread of infectious diseases must be implemented promptly and comprehensively. These measures include, among other things, the protection of public health, the introduction of restrictive measures (quarantine) and measures concerning patients suffering from infectious diseases. Under section 29(3), health protection and anti-epidemic (preventive) measures are mandatory for citizens, individual entrepreneurs and legal entities “in accordance with their activities”, as well as in cases provided for in section 50(2) of the Law. 50 .     Under section 50(2