CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 décembre 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s19646158 { width:117.75pt; 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 GOLOVIZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 21177/21 and 14 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 December 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Golovizin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 November 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 about the disproportionate measures taken against them 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 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 the assemblies is concerned. 9 .     In the leading cases 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.     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 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; 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 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     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 9-13 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), and taking into account the awards made by the Court to some of the applicants in earlier cases (see, for instance, Kravtsov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   390/18 and 24   others, 13 June 2024), 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 11 December 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     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 under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     21177/21 31/03/2021 Nikita Pavlovich GOLOVIZIN 2001   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh   23/01/2021     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 26/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 26/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – publication on social media of calls to take part in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021; conviction under Art. 20.2 § 2 of the CAO; detention for 5 days; final decision Voronezh Regional Court 12/02/2021. 5,000     52678/21 22/10/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich AZAROV 1993   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   15,000 Voronezh Regional Court 30/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report 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     52698/21 22/10/2021 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich SHAKHPAZOV 1998   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 30/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2 p.m. to 11.30 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     52930/21 22/10/2021 Georgiy Alekseyevich SOROKIN 1999   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally "Free Navalnyy"     Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 29/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report 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     55905/21 29/10/2021 Anton Vladimirovich SAVCHENKO 1997   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 25/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.10 p.m. to 10.40 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     61311/21 01/12/2021 Ilya Vitalyevich BONDARENKO 2002   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 15/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. until 10.10 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     61373/21 17/11/2021 Grigoriy Aleksandrovich DONSKOY 1992   Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich Voronezh Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 17/05/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     1429/22 30/12/2021 Viktor Aleksandrovich GLOTOV 1987   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   13,000 Voronezh Regional Court 19/07/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 10.10 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     3126/22 23/12/2021 Milita Aleksandrovna GERBERSAGEN 1993   Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich Voronezh Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   5,000 Voronezh Regional Court 23/06/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   4962/22 10/01/2022 Andrey Mikhaylovich AKHMEDULOV 1994   Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich Vilnius Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 06/10/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.06 p.m. until 10.15 p.m. on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 1,000   8016/22 21/01/2022 Andrey Andreyevich CHERNOMYZYY 1996   Bannikov Ruslan Yuryevich Voronezh Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 02/08/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 9.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 2 a.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. 4,000   24629/22 06/08/2021 Nikolay Nikolayevich GOLEV 1988   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 25/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 10.30 a.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. 4,000   28681/22 22/05/2022 Dmitriy Viktorovich SEVERINOV 1985   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Rally “Free Navalnyy”   Voronezh   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 23/11/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 23/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   38556/22 15/07/2022 Sergey Leonidovich ILLARIONOV 1983   Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh   21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 16/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 21/04/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000   30072/23 12/03/2022 Vladimir Vladimirovich VOLOSHIN 1987   Polyakov Daniil Alekseyevich Voronezh Rally "Free Navalnyy"   Voronezh   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000 Voronezh Regional Court 21/09/2021 Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 1.30 to 4 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.