CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; 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 } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; 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 } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF SIMONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 5568/19 and 3 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 October 2025       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Simonov 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 25 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four 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 Government and the applicants lodged written observations. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The first applicant complained of the unlawful search. The 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 8 of the Convention 8.     The first applicant complained principally of the unlawful search. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention. 9.     In the leading cases of Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020, 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 on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the   search was carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards that would confine its impact to reasonable bounds. 11.     This complaint is therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   8 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     The 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 they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§   416-42, 7   February 2017, and Kablis v. Russia , nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§   50 ‑ 59, 30 April 2019, as regards restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events; and Shimovolos v. Russia , no.   30194/09, §§   56 ‑ 57 and 64-71, 21 June 2011, as regards registration in a secret security services database and the resulting deprivation of liberty. remaining complaints 14.     The first applicant raised further complaints under Articles 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     The Court awards 10,000 euros (EUR) to the first applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the first applicant. 16.     The Court further considers that the finding of a violation constitutes   sufficient just satisfaction   for any non ‑ pecuniary damage the second applicant may have suffered (see, among recent authorities,   Pleshkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023). 17.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court also considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,800 to the first applicant in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the first applicant. 18.     The Court 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 complains under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the first applicant’s complaints under Articles 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search in respect of the first applicant; 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 first applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)   EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)   EUR 1,800 (one thousand and eight hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to Mr Peredruk’s bank account; (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 16 October 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 8 of the Convention (unlawful search) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Type of search Premises Date of the search authorisation Name of issuing authority Date of the search Means of exhaustion Specific defects Other relevant information Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law 5568/19 13/12/2018     and       37182/19 09/07/2019   and   39278/19 09/07/2019   and   15205/20 12/03/2020     Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV 1983   Vitaliy Otariyevich NEBIYERIDZE 1968   Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV 1983     Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV 1983     Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV 1983   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg         Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow     Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi   Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi house search (first applicant) 28/08/2019, the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi 12/09/2019; On 30/10/2019 the Krasnodar Regional Court rejected the first applicant’s appeal against the search authorisation no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: minor severity of the offence, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no evidence supporting the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation, no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasons given why any relevant objects or documents might be found during the search, 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) The first applicant was suspected of a minor offence involving the falsification of the minutes from a general assembly meeting of an NGO, during which a decision was made to change the NGO’s registered address. The first applicant was never charged with the offence and the criminal proceedings were ultimately discontinued. Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - The applicants notified the Sochi Town Administration of their intention to hold a public event on 25/06/2017 in the town centre, with five people expected to take part. The aim of the event was to protest against reinforced security measures during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup. The Town Administration refused to approve the venue and the time of the event. It relied on Presidential Decree no. 202 of 9 May 2017 introducing temporary restrictions on public events during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup and the 2018 FIFA World Cup and on its own decree providing that during those periods all public events unrelated to sport competitions were to be held in a park some twenty kilometres away from the town centre, between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m.;   Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - The first applicant was stopped by the police upon his arrival to Sochi by train at 10.30 a.m. on 19/10/2017. After he showed his identity documents at the request of the police, he was brought to a police station because he was registered in the “Rubin” database held by the FSB as a “person under special surveillance”. The police contacted the FSB who said that the first applicant was registered in the database by mistake, that he was not dangerous and could be released. He was released at 0.05 a.m. on 20/10/2017. (final decision 14/01/2019 by the Supreme Court). The detention did not pursue any legitimate purpose and was entirely arbitrary;   Art. 8 (1) - Private life - the registration of the first applicant’s name in the "Rubin" database held by the FSB (final decision 14/01/2019 by the Supreme Court).