CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 28054/20 Aleksey Markovich VYSOKOVSKIY against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   June 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Articles   5, 6 and 11 of the Convention The Court notes from the outset that, in the present case, the applications were lodged more than six months after the final decisions in respect of the applicants’ grievances under Articles   5, 6 and 11 of the Convention were taken (see the appended table). It must therefore ascertain whether the applicants complied with the six-month rule set out in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention. The Court further notes that, as regards applications introduced in 2020, the method of calculation of the six-month rule has been adjusted in order to handle the difficulties to which the global pandemic and widespread lockdown gave rise and to preserve the essence of the right of individual petition under Article   34 of the Convention. In particular, the six-month rule was exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total, whenever a calendar six-month period either started to run or, on the contrary, was due to expire at any time between 16 March and 15   June 2020 (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1   March 2022). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that neither the dates of the introduction of the applications nor the dates of the expiration of the six-month time-limit fall within the above-mentioned period (16 March to 15 June 2020). The exceptional measure are therefore not applicable in the present case   (compare Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia , no. 53030/19, §   39-40, 9 May 2023; and Masse v. France (dec.), no. 47506/20, 25   March 2025). It follows that the applications were lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.     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     28054/20 26/06/2020 Aleksey Markovich VYSOKOVSKIY 1980   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 17,000 Moscow City Court 20/12/2019 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 - The applicant complains about his inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence     32036/20 23/07/2020 Ivan Yuryevich CHISTYAKOV 1998   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 18/12/2019 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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence,     32065/20 23/07/2020 Darya Nikolayevna KORNILOVA 1976   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 22/01/2020 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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence     32098/20 23/07/2020 Andrey Vasilyevich SAYAPIN 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 22/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016),   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 police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unlawful detention on 27/07/2019, detention in excess of 3 hours     44299/20 16/09/2020 Artem Sergeyevich PRIVALENKO 1996   Dmitriy Yuryevich RYANNEL 1997   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma (events related to the first applicant)   Moscow   27/07/2019   Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma (events related to the second applicant)   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000                 fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 18/12/2019               Moscow City Court 16/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - both applicants complain of absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016),   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - both applicants complain of inability to cross-examine two police officers Mr M. and Mr P. on whose written statements the applicants’ convictions were based.     44477/20 16/09/2020 Sergey Dmitriyevich MISHUNIN 1992   Vyacheslav Viktorovich MOSKVICHEV 1970   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 (each applicant) Moscow City Court 16/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative proceedings concerning both applicants,   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 police officer on whose written statements the applicants’ convictions were based in all sets of the administrative proceedings.