CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .s4646161B { width:136.28pt; display:inline-block } .sAA8E4CBE { width:145.63pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF POPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3125/22 and 20 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 September 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Popova 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 28 August 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, notably in connection with their participation in various public events in breach of COVID-19-related restrictions. 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). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies in connection with their participation in various public events in breach of COVID-19-related restrictions, 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. 8.     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). It further refers to Nemytov and Others, no. 1257/21 and 2 Others, 27   May 2025, in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID ‑ 19 ‑ related restrictions to assemblies are concerned. 9.     In the leading cases of Nemytov and Others, cited above, 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. 10.     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”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     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. 13.     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), and Martynyuk v. Russia , no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8   October 2019, concerning the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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. 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 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 under Article 6 of the Convention; 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 September 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]     3125/22 02/12/2021 Olga Petrovna POPOVA 1997   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   02/02/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 03/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 3,500     17187/22 14/03/2022 Vasiliy Aleksandrovich VYALUSHKIN 1986   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 16/09/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   3,500     29355/22 27/05/2022 Mariya Nikolayevna MOKINA 1997   Sirinova Olga Vladimirovna St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   02/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 07/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 8.30 p.m. on 02/03/2022 until 2.00 p.m. on 03/03/2022. 4,000     37621/22 12/07/2022 Valeriy Dmitriyevich YEZHOV 1995   Mangileva Vera Borisovna Yekaterinburg Anti-war protest   Yekaterinburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 30 hours of community service Sverdlovsk Regional Court 09/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 06/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,500     37853/22 22/07/2022 Katerina Sergeyevna BUSH 1987   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 05/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station on 27/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; detention until the court hearing on 28/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     39796/22 03/08/2022 Valeriy Andreyevich KANIN 1986   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   01/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   6,000 St Petersburg City Court 07/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station before and after compiling an offence report from 7.50 p.m. on 01/03/2022 until the court hearing at 12.15 p.m. on 02/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     44630/22 26/08/2022 Margarita Viktorovna FESENKO 2003   Tkachenko Ilya Valeryevich Kogalym Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 26/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station from 8.30 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until the court hearing at 2 p.m. on 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.   4,000     44839/22 15/08/2022 Mikhail Dmitriyevich ZABELIN 2000       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 21/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention in a police car from 5.15 p.m. until 6.50 p.m. on 27/02/2022, then escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report and detention at the police station until 11.30 p.m. on 27/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     45958/22 07/09/2022 Yana Valeryevna LEBEDEVA 2002   Tkachenko Ilya Valeryevich Kogalym Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 17/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.50 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 12 p.m. on 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. 4,000   46123/22 24/08/2022 Ilya Yevgenyevich SAKHNO 1999       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days St Petersburg City Court 28/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 2 p.m. on 07/03/2022,   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   46375/22 05/09/2022 Dmitriy Vladimirovich SERGEYEV 1984   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 31/05/2022 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 detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 9.40 p.m. on 06/03/2022. 4,000   47537/22 15/09/2022 Dariya Birkhanovna SHCHEGLOVA 1998   Krikun Leonid Leonidovich St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO community service of 40 hours St Petersburg City Court 24/05/2022 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 detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 09.20 a.m. on 07/03/2022. 4,500   47618/22 12/09/2022 Darya Vladimirovna SPASSKAYA 2001   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   25/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 12/05/2022 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 detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8 p.m. on 25/02/2022 to 5.45 p.m. on 26/02/2022. 4,000   47939/22 12/09/2022 Anastasiya Aleksandrovna KOLOMYTSEVA 1996   Gerasimov Dmitriy Georgiyevich St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 14/06/2022 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 detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.55 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until the court hearing on 28/02/2022. 4,000   47943/22 12/09/2022 Yelizaveta Alekseyevna RUBSHINA 1994   Gerasimov Dmitriy Georgiyevich St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   19,000 St Petersburg City Court 17/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention from 27/02/2022 to 28/02/2022. The applicant was taken to the police station for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000   47950/22 15/09/2022 Valeriya Aleksandrovna CHEMERISOVA 1999       Anti-war protest   Voronezh   06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 02/06/2022 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   54405/22 26/10/2022 Sergey Aleksandrovich ZOLOTAREV 1996       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   02/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 28/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - detention from 7. 40 p.m. on 02/03/2022 to 4.10 p.m. on 03/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   4,000   55758/22 09/11/2022 Alisa Vitalyevna MATVEYCHUK 1999       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 19/07/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention from 5.15 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 00.30 a.m. on 07/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   1180/23 19/12/2022 Evelina Mindaugo GUDAUSKAYTE 1999       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO   fine of RUB 15,000 St Petersburg City Court 23/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention from 3.50 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 00.20 p.m. on 07/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   3123/23 23/12/2022 Daniil Dmitriyevich POGUDIN 1997   Shiolashvili Mikhail Germanovich St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 25/08/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish his 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),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   9414/23 09/02/2023 Olga Borisovna CHERNOMORETS 2001       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 11/10/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention from 4 p.m. on 06/03/2022 to 1 p.m. on 07/03/2022. 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.