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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 ANDREYEVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33621/22 and 19 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 Andreyevskaya 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 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). 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, 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 v. Russia (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.     In particular, the Court acknowledges that wide margin of appreciation is allowed to the authorities dealing with the health crisis of COVID-19 magnitude (see Nemytov and Others , cited above, §§ 115-17 and Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain , no. 49363/20, §   81, 17   October 2024). However, at the time of relevant events, that is February ‑ March 2022, various COVID-19 related restrictions were progressively lifted. 12.     The Court notes that no regime of strict lockdowns has been in force, most of COVID-19 related restrictions had been eased, and indoors and outdoors sports, cultural, entertainment and other events could have been held with minimal to no restrictions. Under these circumstances no sufficient justification has been advanced on why the applicant’s participation in anti ‑ war protests should have been restrictions, leisure activities allowed, even if under certain conditions. Furthermore, the judicial decision imposing sanctions on the applicants in the present cases lacked detailed and meaningful proportionality analysis, which could justify why imposition on the sanctions had been necessary. Therefore, the fines and administrative detention orders by the domestic courts had been disproportionate to the aim pursued and the domestic authorities overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them (see mutatis mutandis Nemytov and Others , §§   128-30, cited above). 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 14.     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. 15.     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 16.     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 10-15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     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 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 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]     33621/22 20/06/2022 Tatyana Alekseyevna ANDREYEVSKAYA 1997   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 22/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 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     34590/22 30/06/2022 Gaziza Musayevna ATANOVA 1997       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO detention of 5 days St Petersburg City Court 03/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 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,   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     36248/22 08/07/2022 Zlatislava Yuryevna PANKRATOVA 1999       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO detention of 15 days St Petersburg City Court 10/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 01/03/2022,   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 6,000     37089/22 13/07/2022 Igor Yevgenyevich KOKOSHINSKIY 1995       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO detention of 12 days St Petersburg City Court 16/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 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   6,000     39230/22 28/07/2022 Polina Andreyevna BUROVSKAYA 1998   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   24/02/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 29/03/2022 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 24/02/2022 until 25/02/2022 4,000     40313/22 28/07/2022 Darya Pavlovna MUKHINA 2000   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 29/03/2022 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 the police station on 27/02/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     40520/22 02/08/2022 Taisiya Vladimirovna ABDRAKHMANOVA 1996   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 05/04/2022 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 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022 4,000     40524/22 04/08/2022 Fedor Stanislavovich KARPENKO 1982   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 05/04/2022 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 the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report 4,000     40749/22 07/08/2022 Nadezhda Alekseyevna MASLENNIKOVA 1990   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 07/04/2022 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 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022 4,000   42737/22 19/08/2022 Anna Aleksandrovna VINOGRADOVA 1991       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 19/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 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   43063/22 19/08/2022 Yelena Mikhaylovna BELOUSOVA 1966       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   03/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 19/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 03/03/2022 until 04/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   43099/22 18/08/2022 Anastasiya Maksimovna KATAYEVA 2001       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   25/02/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 21/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 25/02/2022 until 26/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   43154/22 23/08/2022 Ilya Sergeyevich PETROV 1985       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   20,000 St Petersburg City Court 28/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) (b) - lawful arrest/detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 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   43177/22 18/08/2022 Georgiy Gennadyevich MALYSHEV 1991       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   02/03/2022 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 after compiling an offence report from 02/03/2022 until 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   43243/22 19/08/2022 Svetlana Aleksandrovna STAVNIYCHUK 1983       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   03/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 21/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 03/03/2022 until 04/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   43322/22 12/08/2022 Yekaterina Vladimirovna NIKOLAYEVA 1979       Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   28/02/2022 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 12/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 28/02/2022 until 01/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   43446/22 25/08/2022 Vadim Aleksandrovich MRYASOV 1987       Ant-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 St Petersburg City Court 26/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 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   45959/22 07/09/2022 Aleksandra Vladislavovna KOZICHEVA 1996   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 17/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 24/02/2022 until 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   11862/23 02/03/2023 Kirill Gennadyevich MIROSHNIK 1995   Vasilchenko Olesya Anatolyevna Minyar Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   06/03/2022 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 10/11/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 07/03/2022 4,000   25418/23 01/06/2023 Denis Valeryevich PAVLENKOVICH 1991   Vasilchenko Olesya St Petersburg Anti-war protest   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 02/02/2023 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.