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 } .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 KRYLENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 41210/21 and 12 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 Krylenkov 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 in connection with their participation in various public events in 2021 in St Petersburg in breach of COVID-19 related restrictions. The applicants 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 2021 in St   Petersburg 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 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 case of Nemytov and Others (cited above, §§ 136-51) the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see further 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). 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); Tomov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5   others, §§   114-42, 9   April 2019, as regards the conditions of transport of detainees; 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; and 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-13 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 the 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]     41210/21 04/08/2021 Lev Vyacheslavovich KRYLENKOV 1977   Shiolashvili Mikhail Germanovich St Petersburg Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 12 days St Petersburg City Court 05/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.25 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 12 p.m. on 02/02/2021,   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     41595/21 04/08/2021 Anton Aleksandrovich MAKHANKO 1986   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   23/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 7 days St Petersburg City Court 16/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7 p.m. on 23/01/2021 until 2 p.m. on 24/01/2021,   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     41600/21 04/08/2021 Yaroslav Sergeyevich PUTROV 1998   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 10 days St Petersburg City Court 10/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 5.45 p.m. on 01/02/2021,   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     41682/21 04/08/2021 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich SAMUYLOV 1999   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Rally "Free Navalnyy"   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 6 days St Petersburg City Court 09/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 11 a.m. on 01/02/2021,   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     51807/21 23/09/2021 Patrik Yevgenyevich DUKSIN 2001   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 25/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.28 p.m. until 6.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     51891/21 23/09/2021 Sofya Alekseyevna OSTROVSKAYA 1996   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 St Petersburg City Court 25/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1.00 a.m. on 01/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     52716/21 15/10/2021 Denis Yevgenyevich KAPLENKO 1968   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 St Petersburg City Court 27/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.40 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1.40 a.m. on 01/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     52747/21 15/10/2021 Igor Andreyevich BORODKO 1981   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 15 days St Petersburg City Court 23/04/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of transfer in a police bus on 21/04/2021 for 3 hours and 45 minutes: cramped conditions (with 50 other demonstrators in a bus with significantly less than 50 places), no ventilation,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.00 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 11.05 p.m. on 22/04/2021,   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 7,000     54282/21 21/10/2021 Artem Aleksandrovich VAYTITSKIY 1995   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 12 days St Petersburg City Court 27/04/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of transfer in a police van on 21/04/2021 for 2 hours 20 minutes: cramped conditions (more detainees than seats so that the applicant and others had to stand, lack of ventilation while too hot, a detainee vomited),   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.35 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 5.30 p.m. on 22/04/2021,   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. 7,000   54529/21 18/10/2021 Yuliya Mikhaylovna DEMENTIYENKO 1972   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 12 days St Petersburg City Court 28/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.50 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 4.30 p.m. on 22/04/2021,   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   54553/21 15/10/2021 Aleksandr Igorevich KARPINSKIY 1986   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   St Petersburg   21/04/2021 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO detention for 7 days St Petersburg City Court 27/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 4.00 p.m. on 22/04/2021,   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   54565/21 17/10/2021 Ulyana Sergeyevna NESHKO 1998   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. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.55 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 5.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   55304/21 24/10/2021 Kirill Artemovich GOLUBCHIK 2002   Kychin Aleksey Mikhaylovich Arkhangelsk Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   St Petersburg   31/01/2021 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days (served in full under the Pushkinskiy District Court’s judgment of 31/01/2021) St Petersburg City Court 21/09/2021 (proceedings discontinued for the expiry of the prosecution period)   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) between 21/04/2021 and 22/04/2021 as administrative suspect in proceedings concerning calls for participation in a rally (Arkhangelsk Regional Court’s final judgment of 23/06/2021), pending trial and after the offence report under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO had been compiled; and (ii) on 31/01/2021 as administrative suspect in proceedings concerning the rally in St Petersburg on 31/01/2021, pending trial and after the offence report under article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO had been compiled,   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 first set of proceedings (final judgment of 23/06/2021),   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - publication on 22/01/2021 to a telegram channel of calls to participate in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy scheduled for 23/01/2021 - arrest, conviction under article 20.2-2 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment of 23/06/2021 of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court, complaint lodged on 24/10/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 31/01/2021 was executed immediately, for the lack of a suspensive effect under the CAO. 5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.