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 } .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 } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; 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 } .s88DC4A4D { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7269AE77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 DROKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 54225/14 and 10 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 Drokin 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 of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. 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 10 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention, taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article   11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016). 8.     In the leading case of Novikova and Others (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis , Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 432-42, 7 February 2017; and Glukhin v.   Russia , no. 11519/20, §§ 49-57, 4 July 2023). 9.     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 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 expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     Some 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. 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 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; 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; Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russi a, nos. 11884/22 and 161 others, § 111-19 and 125-27, 11 February 2025, relating to administrative conviction for public actions aimed at discrediting Russian military; Navalnyy and Yashin v.   Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014, and Kasparov and Others v.   Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, concerning disproportionate measures taken against the applicants as organisers or participants of 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 12.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers 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 10 of the Convention concerning disproportionate measures taken against solo demonstrators and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine the remainder of the applications; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 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 10 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date Purpose of the demonstration Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Date Name of the court Other complaints under well-established case ‑ law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expense per applicant (in euros) [1]     54225/14 15/07/2014 Aleksey Aleksandrovich DROKIN 1954   Sirotkin Igor Borisovich Krasnoyarsk 23/04/2013 Krasnoyarsk Protest against allegedly unfair outcome of civil proceedings article 20.2   §   1 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 16/01/2014 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court   3,500     63358/16 21/10/2016 Irina Aleksandrovna YATSENKO 1981   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Moscow, 09/01/2016, Solo demonstration with a poster "Get rid of fear and find freedom”   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 22/04/2016 Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) on 09/01/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; (ii) between 08/03/2016 and 09/03/2016 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled; and (iii) between 14/03/2020 and at least 15/03/2020 as administrative suspect, after the offence record 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 - all sets of proceedings (final judgments of 22/04/2016, 26/06/2016, 20/07/2016, 04/09/2020 by the Moscow City Court),   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – (i) Gathering in support of Ukraine, political prisoners and N. Savchenko, Moscow, 08/03/2016; convictions in two separate sets of proceedings: (a) under article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 500, final judgment of 26/06/2016 by the Moscow City Court; and   (b) under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment of 20/07/2016 by the Moscow City Court; and (ii) Event in support of the accused in the "Network" (Set’) case, Moscow, 14/03/2020 - conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final judgment issued on 04/09/2020, Moscow City Court 4,000     13226/18 12/03/2018 Aleksey Borisovich BELENKIN 1977   Sergey Mikhaylovich BYKOVSKIY 1975   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow, 28/01/2017, Support of Yu. Dmitriev each of the applicants: article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000     Moscow City Court:   10/10/2017 (Mr Belenkin)     12/09/2017 (Mr Bykovskiy) Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - (i) in respect of both applicants, arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 28/01/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; (ii) in respect of Mr   Belenkin, arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 25/11/2021 and 26/11/2021 as administrative suspect,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - all sets of proceedings concerning both applicants,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies -the second applicant (Mr Belenkin) - Moscow, 25/11/2021, Support of Memorial - arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held on 25/11/2021 by a group of no less than 50 participants on a rotation basis, article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 25 days, final judgment: Moscow City Court, 02/12/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the second applicant (Mr Belenkin) by the court of the first instance on 26/11/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO EUR 5,000 to Mr Belenkin,   EUR 4,000 to Mr Bykovskiy     17386/19 20/03/2019 Nikolay Andreyevich LOGVIN 1993   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Moscow, 20/06/2018, Protest against amendments to regional electoral laws article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   10,000 20/09/2018 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 20/06/2018 for compiling an offence report,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     24538/19 08/04/2019 Pavel Vyacheslavovich CHUPRUNOV 1993   Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg St Petersburg, 05/10/2018, Protest against the appointment of a new Governor of St Petersburg   the applicant was arrested when approaching the venue where he intended to stage his demonstration   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, administrative detention of 5 days 09/10/2018 St Petersburg City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 05/10/2018 and 07/10/2018 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled, and (ii) on 15/03/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,   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,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - St Petersburg, 15/03/2020, Protest against constitutional amendments - arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held on 15/03/2020 by a group of no less than 50 persons, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment of 01/09/2020 by the St Petersburg City Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 07/10/2018 in the first set of proceedings was executed immediately, on account of the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO   5,000     203/20 18/12/2019 Anastasiya Aleksandrovna LOTAREVA 1983   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Moscow, 08/06/2019, Support of I. Golunov   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 12/07/2019 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention: (i) on 08/06/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, and (ii) on 28/05/2020, for "putting an end to an administrative offence",   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,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Moscow, 28/05/2020, event in support of I. Azar - arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held by a group of no less than 10 participants, article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, fine of RUB 150,000, final judgment of 11/08/2021, Moscow City Court   5,500     35045/22 30/06/2022 Aleksey Yuryevich DYDOCHKIN 1989   Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich Samara Tolyatti, 24/02/2022, Anti-war picket article 20.1 § 1 of CAO, administrative detention of 5 days 01/03/2022 Samara Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention –   (i) arrest, escorting to the police station detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect pending trial and after the offence record was compiled; and   (ii) arrest and escorting to the police station on 13/03/2022 for compiling an offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - two sets of proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – 13/03/2022, Tolyatti - arrest, conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for wearing an anti-war pin, which authorities deemed to discredit the Russian Armed Forces; administrative fine of RUB 30,000, final judgment of 19/05/2022 by the Samara Regional Court,   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     37020/22 04/07/2022 Viktor Sergeyevich BARANTSEV 1986   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Moscow 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 25 days 04/03/2022 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 24/02/2022 and 25/02/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record 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 (first set of proceedings, final judgment of 04/03/2022),   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Rally in support of A. Navalnyy, Moscow, 23/01/2021 - arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment of 21/10/2022 by the Moscow City Court,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 25/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 6,000     39456/22 26/08/2021 Nikolay Yuryevich DYACHKOV 1991   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Ivanovo, Moscow Region 01/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, fine of RUB   75,000 13/05/2022 Ivanovo Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention: (i) on 29/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   (ii) between 01/03/2022 and 02/03/2022 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled; (iii) on 11/03/2022, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings:   (i) fine of RUB   10,000; 17/03/2021, Ivanovo Regional Court;   (ii) 40 hours of community service; 23/06/2021, Ivanovo Regional Court; (iii) fine of RUB 35,000; 07/06/2022, Ivanovo Regional Court,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events: (i) on 27/01/2021 the applicant published a call for participation in a demonstration in support of Navalnyy scheduled 31/01/2021 to his Twitter account; he was arrested and escorted to a police station on 29/01/2021, convicted under 20.2 § 1 CAO and fined with RUB 10,000 (final judgment: 17/03/2021, Ivanovo Regional Court); (ii) on 20/04/2021 the applicant published a call for participation in a demonstration in support of Navalnyy on 21/04/2021 to his Facebook page; he was convicted under 20.2 § 2 CAO and sentenced to 40 hours of community service (final judgment: 23/06/2021, Ivanovo Regional Court),   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - arrest and detention on 11/03/2022, conviction under 20.3.3. § 1 CAO and fine of RUB   35,000 for publishing on 05/03/2022 a tweet against the war in Ukraine which the authorities deemed to discredit the Russian Armed Forces (final judgment: 07/06/2022, Ivanovo Regional Court) 5,000   42752/22 19/08/2022 Anton Yuryevich GORBAN 1984   Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Novgorod 11/04/2022 Anti-war protest article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, administrative detention of 7 days,   and   article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB   45,000 20/04/2022, Novgorod Regional Court     and   27/06/2022, Novgorod Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report (art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO) from 6.40 p.m. until 8.45 p.m. on 11/04/2022, as well as for compiling a second offence report (Art. 19.3 § 1 of the CAO) from 11.15 a.m. on 14/04/2022 until the hearing in the first instance court on the same date,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings   5,000   17363/23 12/04/2023 Yevgeniy Andreyevich FEDIN 1981       Moscow 10/03/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB   20,000 15/12/2022 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 10/03/2022 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.