CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 juin 2025

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; 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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF DOMOZHIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 23218/17 and 12 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 June 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Domozhirov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 22 May 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. 3.     The applicant in application no. 19835/18 lodged written observations. In addition, in the same application third-party comments were received from ARTICLE 19, which had been given leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   44 § 3).   THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants, with exception to the two applicants in application no. 10504/18 (for further details see appended table below), complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 7.     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   11 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     The applicants, save for two applicants in application no. 10504/18 (for further details see appended table below), complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 9.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 10.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 11.     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 as to 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 assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 12 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 13.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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. 14 .     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols 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; Karelin v.   Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, §   70, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4   February 2020, concerning various shortcomings related to police searches at the applicants’ premises; Butkevich, cited above, §§ 129-39, concerning unjustified interference (measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies) with the applicant’s freedom of expression; 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 15.     Some applicants raised further additional complaint under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs   12-14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 the facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto 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 applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   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 under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     23218/17 20/03/2017 Yevgeniy Valeryevich DOMOZHIROV 1974   Anatoliy Leonidovich GRYAZNOV 1977   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally "825 years of Vologda Park"   Vologda   01/06/2016 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO (Domozhirov)   and   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (Gryaznov) 40 hours of community works (Domozhirov for Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO),   fine of RUB 10,000 (Gryaznov under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO) Vologda Regional Court 26/12/2016   3,500 to each applicant     10504/18 14/11/2017 (3 applicants) Dmitriy Vladimirovich ZUBAREV 1987   Vladimir Ivanovich ZUBAREV 1956   Galina Ivanovna ZUBAREVA 1956   Kasilova Natalya Anatolyevna Vladivostok Rally against corruption (the first applicant only participated in the rally and raised complaint about it)   Vladivostok   26/03/2017   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO           and     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 15 days           and     fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 12/05/2017   (a full copy of the judgment issued on 16/05/2017)   and     Primorye Regional Court 05/07/2017 First applicant, Mr   D.   Zubarev:   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention of the first applicant:   (i) on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record (article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO), and   (ii) on 20/02/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up and offence record in respect of the rally of 28/01/2018 (article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - the first and the second sets of the CAO proceedings in respect of the first applicant (final judgments of 12/05/2017 and 05/07/2017),   Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - Voters’ Strike, 28/01/2018, Vladivostok – the first applicant was present at the rally as a journalist. On 20/02/2018 an administrative-offence record under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO was compiled in respect of him. On 28/02/2018 the police discontinued the proceedings, for the lack of corpus delicti . On 27/09/2019 the applicant claimed compensation for an alleged breach of his right to liberty and freedom of expression on account of the arrest and unlawful administrative-offence proceedings. The courts awarded him RUB 3,000 (EUR   32) of compensation for unlawful arrest on 20/02/2018 and rejected the remainder of the claims. Final judgment of 07/04/2021 by the Supreme Court of Russia.   All three applicants:   Art. 8 (1) - Home - Search of the flat in which the three applicants lived on 05/05/2017 in connection with criminal investigation in respect of unidentified persons concerning an attack on a policeman during the rally of 26/03/2017- court search warrant of 04/05/2017 issued by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, upheld on appeal on 08/08/2017 by the Primorye Regional Court. Specific defects: no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation 9,750, to the first applicant;   7,500, jointly to the remaining two applicants, Ms G. Zubareva and Mr   V.   Zubarev     19835/18 09/04/2018 Andrey Vladimirovich RUDOY 1990   Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich Kazan protest against an increase in public transport fares   Dzerzhinsk, the Nizhniy Novgorod region   26/11/2017 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO administrative fine of RUB 20,000 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 18/01/2018   3,500     55824/21 05/11/2021 Konstantin Sergeyevich SMIRNOV 1983   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Krasnoyarsk   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 13/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00   p.m. on 31/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000     7545/22 20/01/2022 Artem Nikolayevich ZAZYKIN 1985   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow "Free Navalnyy"   Tula   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Tula Regional Court 20/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station between 2.15 p.m. and 6.30   p.m. on 23/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000     35062/22 30/05/2022 Maksim Alekseyevich LOGINOV 1986   Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich Samara Anti-war protest   Tolyatti   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention for 10   days Samara Regional Court 01/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 24-25/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   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     48754/22 14/09/2022 Ramiz Talyb ogly USUBOV 1994   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   Novosibirsk   06/03/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Novosibirsk Regional Court 26/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 06/03/2022 between 3.40 p.m. and 9.30 p.m.,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     2270/24 31/12/2023 Tatyana Aleksandrovna GLAZOVA 1987       Anti-war protest   Moscow   13/03/2022       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 31/08/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 13-14/03/2022. 4,000     3271/24 13/01/2024 Svetlana Edgarovna FRIK 1967       Anti-war protest   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 §   6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 13/09/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report on 27/02/2022 4,000   10986/24 31/03/2024 Svetlana Sergeyevna NEKRASOVA 1989   Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 03/10/2023 (Copy of the appellate decision received at the District Court’s registry on 26/01/2024) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The police did not indicate reasons for detention such as why the offence report could not be compiled at the scene. 4,000   13613/24 25/04/2024 Kirill Nikolayevich IGAMBERDIYEV 1987   Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich Moscow Anti-war rally   Moscow   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 27/10/2023 (Copy of the appellate decision received at the District Court’s registry on 28/12/2023).           Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The police did not indicate reasons for detention such as why the offence report could not be compiled at the scene. Also detained in excess of 3   hours - a total of 6h20min. 4,000   14678/24 15/04/2024 Ruslan Olegovich BEZRUCHENKOV 1995       Anti-war rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/12/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The police did not indicate reasons for detention such as why the offence report could not be compiled at the scene. Also, the duration of detention exceeded three hours. 4,000   14746/24 12/04/2024 Denis Dmitriyevich SERGEYEV 1998       Anti-war rally   Moscow   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 13/12/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The police did not indicate reasons for detention such as why the offence report could not be compiled at the scene. Also, the duration of detention exceeded three hours. 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.