CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 juillet 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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .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 } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 BYKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7657/18 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bykova and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19   June 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 disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. They 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). STANDING OF THE APPLICANT’S widow TO PURSUE APPLICATION N o . 42946/20 7.     Following Mr Petrov’s death, his widow, Mrs Natalya Aleksandrovna Chekavtseva, expressed the wish to pursue the application. 8.     The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey , no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may, in principle, pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v.   the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII). 9.     In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Mrs Chekavtseva has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue referring to Mr Petrov as the applicant in the present judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 10.     The applicants 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. 11.     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). 12.     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. 13.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20 and 22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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”. 14.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 15.     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. 16.     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); 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; 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; and Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia , nos. 11884/22 and 161 others, 11   February 2025, concerning prosecution for the statements about the Russian military. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 17.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12-16 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022), ), the Court considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Mr Kotov (application no.   10675/19), and Mr Petrov (application no. 42946/20). It further finds reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants (compare, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022). 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 that Mrs Chekavtseva (application no. 42946/20) has standing to pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead; 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 finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints; 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 the appended table); Holds (a)   the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Mr Kotov (application no.   10675/19), and Mr   Petrov (application no. 42946/20); (b)   that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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; 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 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]     7657/18 26/01/2018 Alena Leonidovna BYKOVA 1988   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Anti-corruption meeting   Pushkinskaya square, Moscow   26/03/2017 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 26/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - detention in a police van and at the police station from 3.45 p.m. to 9 p.m. on 26/03/2017 - detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia nos. 54381/08 and 5 others §§ 121-22 10 April 2018) (the complaint is raised in the course of the administrative proceedings);   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     10675/19 12/02/2019 Konstantin Aleksandrovich KOTOV 1985   Gayazova Regina Fargatovna Kazan Anti-Government Manifestation   Bolshaya Lubyanka str., Moscow;   16/12/2018   Manifestation in support of Oleg Sentsov   Chistoprudniy boulevard, Moscow   21/08/2018     Manifestation against the pension reform   Moscow   09/09/2018     Anti-Government Manifestation   Tverskaya str., Moscow   05/05/2018       Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                   Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO               Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000                 fine of RUB 10,000                   fine of RUB 10,000               fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 08/02/2019               Moscow City Court 08/10/2018                 Moscow City Court 18/02/2019             Moscow City Court 16/08/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in all sets of the proceedings to which the applicant was a party (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016),   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unlawful (unjustified) arrest on 16/12/2018 (see Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 147-152, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2016 (extracts)) The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     27759/20 13/06/2020 Dmitriy Sergeyevich TURKO 1988   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 15,000 Moscow City Court 18/10/2019 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 - detention from 27/07/2019 to 29/07/2019 - Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018), issue raised on appeal 4,000     42946/20 04/09/2020 Denis Nikolayevich PETROV 1977 Died in 2021   Heir: Natalya Aleksandrovna CHEKAVTSEVA 1981   Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   03/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Moscow City Court 04/12/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings;   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention from 03/08/2019 from 3.20 p.m. to 6 p.m. - Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) - detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     44761/21 24/08/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich STEPANOV 1973   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Tambov   23/01/2021 Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Tambov   21/04/2021   Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy   Tambov   21/04/2021 article 20.6.1           article 20.2 § 8 of CAO               article 20.6.1 § 2 fine of RUB 30,000         administrative detention of 30 days;             fine of RUB 30,000     Tambov Regional Court 07/04/2021       Tambov Regional Court 29/04/2021             Tambov Regional Court 28/07/2021 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 28/04/2021 - detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the trial court was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-191, 10 April 2018; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42., 8 October 2019). Two administrative sentences: Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov 29/01/2021 and 28/04/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events:   I. The applicant was convicted under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO for posting information about Manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy in Tambov on 23/01/2021, administrative detention of 7 days; final decision on the matter was taken by the Tambov Regional Court on 24/02/2021;   II. On 05/03/2022 the applicant posted an anti-war statement on his page in Vkontacte social network in which he expressed negative attitude towards the war in Ukraine. He was convicted of an administrative offence of discreditation of the Russian Army under 20.3.3 § 1 CAO. Final decision was taken by the Tambov Regional Court on 30/04/2022. Administrative fine of RUB 40,000 5,000     12835/22 09/02/2022 Yuliya Sergeyevna POSEVKINA 1976       Manifestation against war in Ukraine   Syktyvkar   24/02/2022 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO 5 days’ administrative arrest Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 06/04/2022 Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - the applicant was convicted under Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO for having posted information about a manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy in Moscow and St Petersburg, administrative fine of RUB 10,000; final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 13/10/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in respect of the proceedings which ended on 13/10/2021 and 06/04/2022,   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 24/02/2022 - detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018); (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - The applicant was convicted under Article 20.3.3 of CAO for making comments in a social network (VKontakte) with a purpose “to discredit Russian armed forces” during the period between 12/03/2022 and 30/03/2022; administrative fine of RUB 30,000; the final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic on 28/09/2022 1,000     41824/22 11/08/2022 Ilya Rustamovich PARPIKHODZHAYEV 1999   Zyryanova Mariya Sergeyevna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO 10 days’ administrative arrest St Petersburg City Court 12/04/2022 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 06/03/2022 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2 July 2019) (raised in the administrative proceedings),   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   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.