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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 DOBRUSIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 47813/21 and 12 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 Dobrusin 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 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, §§ 136-51, 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, 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 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; and 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). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     All applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 56645/21, 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 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]     47813/21 16/09/2021 Boris Davydovich DOBRUSIN 1984   Karagodina Veronika Yuryevna St Petersburg Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO 8 days of administrative detention St Petersburg City Court 23/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 12.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence and bringing the applicant to the court hearing, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 23/03/2021. 5,000     47844/21 08/09/2021 Denis Yuryevich SMIRNOV 1969   Grachev Anton Sergeyevich Strasskirchen Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO 8 days of administrative detention St Petersburg City Court 09/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 12 p.m. till the court hearing in the evening on 31/01/2021 for the purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence and bringing the applicant to the court hearing, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 09/03/2021. 5,000     48238/21 15/09/2021 Mikhail Yuryevich LABYUK 1982   Nepovinnova Yana Andreyevna St Petersburg Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 22/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 8.20 p.m. on 21/04/2021 to about 6 p.m. on 22/04/2021 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and bringing the applicant to the court hearing, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 22/06/2021. 4,000     49514/21 24/09/2021 Igor Olegovich KONDRATYEV 1993   Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO 7 days of administrative detention St Petersburg City Court 25/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 25/03/2021. 5,000     49516/21 14/09/2021 Saveliy Vitalyevich LIPAYEV 1999   Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO 5 days of administrative detention St Petersburg City Court 25/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 4.32 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 10 a.m. on 01/02/2021 until court hearing for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 25/03/2021. 5,000     50269/21 02/10/2021 Regina Vladimirovna SERGIYENKO 2002   Karagodina Veronika Yuryevna St Petersburg Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 22/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 22/04/2021. 4,000     50979/21 05/10/2021 Georgiy Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV 1990   Loktev Sergey Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Theatrical performance in protest of Roskomnadzor slowing down of Twitter (4 participants)   St Petersburg   30/03/2021 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 7 days of administrative detention St Petersburg City Court 06/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 9.35 p.m. on 30/03/2021 to 12.30 p.m. on 01/04/2021for the purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence and bringing the applicant to the court hearing, raised on appeal. 5,000     55680/21 05/11/2021 Anatoliy Olegovich ALEKSANDROV 1987   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 18/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,     Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 18/05/2021. 4,000     56645/21 20/10/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich TIUNCHIK 1990   Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   12,000 St Petersburg City Court 20/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1.25 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 4.10 a.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 20/04/2021. 4,000   1421/22 30/12/2021 Aleksandr Genrikhovich BESEDIN 2002   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   23/01/2021 article 30.7 § 1.1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   4,000 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg 01/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1.20 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 1 a.m. on 24/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 01/07/2021. 4,000   4903/22 10/01/2022 Yelena Anatolyevna GRIGORYEVA 1989   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO administrative fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 21/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 3.10 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 9 a.m. on 01/02/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 21/09/2021. 4,000   4972/22 12/12/2021 Polina Alekseyevna OGURTSOVA 1995   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   23/01/2021 article 8.6.1 § 2 CAO administrative fine of RUB   4,000 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg 25/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 1.50 a.m. to 7 p.m. on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 25/06/2021. 4,000   4980/22 12/12/2021 Edgar Mikhaylovich MAKAROV 1994   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Manifestation in support of A.   Navalnyy   St Petersburg   23/01/2021 article 8.6.1 § 2 CAO administrative fine of RUB   4,000 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg 25/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention from 2 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 25/06/2021. 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.