CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s19646158 { width:117.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 47310/20 Sergey Aleksandrovich SYCHEV against Russia and 11 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   November 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court observes that, in the present case, the applications were lodged more than six months after the final decisions in respect of the applicants’ grievances under Article   11 of the Convention were taken (see the appended table). It must therefore ascertain whether the applicants complied with the six-month rule set out in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention. The Court notes that, as regards applications introduced in 2020, the method of calculation of the six-month rule has been adjusted in order to handle the difficulties to which the global pandemic and widespread lockdown gave rise and to preserve the essence of the right of individual petition under Article   34 of the Convention. In particular, the six-month rule was exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total, whenever a calendar six-month period either started to run or, on the contrary, was due to expire at any time between 16   March and 15   June 2020 (see   Saakashvili v. Georgia   (dec.), nos.   6232/20   and   22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that neither the dates of the introduction of the applications nor the dates of the expiration of the six-month time-limit fall within the above-mentioned period (16   March to 15 June 2020). The exceptional measure is therefore not applicable in the present case   (compare   Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia , no.   53030/19, §   39-40, 9 May 2023; and   Masse v. France   (dec.), no.   47506/20, 25   March 2025). It follows that the applications were lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 December 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   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     47310/20 05/10/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich SYCHEV 1987 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Zelenodolsky Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   10,000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (both decisions on the same date) 22/01/2020 Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding his participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).     47320/20 02/10/2020 Marat Minakhmatovich MUNASIPOV 1992 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Zelenodolsky Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   fines of RUB   10,000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (both decisions on the same date) 22/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings (22/01/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers and other witnesses on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding his participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).       47326/20 01/10/2020 Valentina Veniaminovna KUZNETSOVA 1965 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   10 000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (both decisions on the same date) 22/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings (22/01/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers and other witnesses on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding her participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).       47329/20 02/10/2020 Tatyana Grigoryevna VOROBYEVA 1957 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Zelenodolsky Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 22/01/2020       47336/20 02/10/2020 Aleksey Vyacheslavovich ALEKSEYEV 1978 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan     Zelenodolsky Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   10,000 and RUB   700 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 22/01/2020 and 05/02/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings (22/01/2020 and 05/02/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers and other witnesses on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding his participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).       47344/20 02/10/2020 Valentina Vladimirovna ANDRONOVA 1977 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Zelenodolsky Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   10,000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (both decisions on the same date) 22/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings (22/02/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding her participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).       47347/20 02/10/2020 Zoya Nikolayevna MARTYASHINA 1960 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan     Zelenodolsky Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   10,000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (both decisions on the same date) 22/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings (22/01/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers and other witnesses on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding her participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).       47353/20 02/10/2020 Irina Gamilovna AZABINA 1968 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Zelenodolsky Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   10,000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (both decisions on the same date) 22/01/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings (22/01/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers and other witnesses on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding his participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).       48341/20 16/10/2020 Oleg Aleksandrovich KHORKOV 2000 Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich Moscow Internet freedom rally   Moscow   10/03/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Moscow City Court 22/01/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 12.30 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. on 10/03/2019;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 22/01/2020, Moscow City Court.     48538/20 20/10/2020 Nikolay Borisovich VOROBYEV 1957 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Zelenodolsky District of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   5,000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (both decisions on the same date) 05/02/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings (05/02/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding his participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).     48555/20 20/10/2020 Ruzaliya Tasimovna GAYNULLINA 1957 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Zelenodolsky District of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,         article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   5,000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 12/02/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in both sets of proceedings (12/02/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding his participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).     48572/20 20/10/2020 Lyubov Kuzminichna SHESHINA 1956 Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against construction of a combustion plant in Tatarstan   Zelenodolsky Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic   16/12/2019 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO,           article 19.3 § 1 of CAO fines of RUB   5,000 and RUB   500 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (both decisions on the same date) 12/02/2020 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings (12/02/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic);   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant has been held administratively liable twice regarding her participation in one and the same manifestation (complaint raised on appeal).