CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 janvier 2026

.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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sA79D7CC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s9C40A127 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9078A711 { width:11.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s90114CF2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s46945B1C { width:7.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s40F4C625 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF46D03BC { width:4.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3FD17360 { width:3.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB5B0CEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s9C6224B1 { margin-left:34pt; text-indent:-17pt; list-style-position:outside } .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 } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD91B6282 { width:117.75pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF OVCHINNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 6493/22 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 January 2026       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ovchinnikov 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 18 December 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 unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). 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 5 § 1 of the Convention 7.     All the applicants, with exception of the applicants Mr Batalin and Mr   Podsivaka in application no. 12055/23, complained principally of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   5   §   1 of the Convention. 8.     The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law. However, since under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among numerous other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom , 10 June 1996, §§ 40-41 in fine , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III). 9.     In the leading cases of Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§   91‑96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, § 67, 13   February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia , no. 6110/03, § 81, 3   March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, 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 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 applicants’ detention, as described in the appended table, was contrary to domestic law requirements and the “lawfulness” guarantee of Article 5 of the Convention. 11 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 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. 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 Frumkin v. Russia , no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with regard to disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, regarding the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); 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; 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; Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia , nos. 11884/22 and 161 others, §§ 93-126, 11 February 2025, with regard to administrative conviction for discreditation of the use of the Russian Armed Forces in the context of anti-war protest actions.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     The applicants in applications nos. 33689/22 and 10033/23 raised further additional complaint under Articles 6 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with this remaining complaint.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Biryuchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 1253/04 and 2 others, § 96, 11 December 2014), 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 5 § 1 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 decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaint raised by the applicants in applications nos.   33689/22 and 10033/23;      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);      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   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;   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 22 January 2026, 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 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start date of unauthorised detention End date of unauthorised detention Specific defects Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]       6493/22 18/01/2022 Yakov Vasilyevich OVCHINNIKOV 1967   Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow 21/04/2021, 3.40 p.m.         13/03/2022 21/04/2021, 7.15 p.m., raised on appeal on 22/07/2021   13/03/2022, raised on appeal on 31/05/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2   July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018) , Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Perm Regional Court, 22/07/2021 and 31/05/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events: administrative conviction under article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO for calls to participate in an unauthorised manifestation on 21/04/2021 in support of Navalnyy, published in VKontakte; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 22/07/2021, fine of RUB   10,000,   various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for making publication discrediting Russian army in VKontakte; final decision: Perm Regional Court, 31/05/2022, fine of RUB   30,000 5,000     33215/22 06/06/2022 Gennadiy Mikhaylovich LOMAKOV 1948   Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg 10/04/2022, 10.09 p.m.   11/04/2022, 08.55, until court hearing, raised on appeal Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2   July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment of “exceptional circumstances” under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018), Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 121-22, 10   April 2018) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 28/04/2022 and 31/08/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3.3 §   1 of the CAO for publication allegedly discrediting Russian army in Facebook; final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 31/08/2022, fine of RUB   40,000,   Art. 11 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly - administrative conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO for participation in anti-war rally in Novouralsk on 31/03/2022, final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 28/04/2022, detention for 9 days,   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, final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 28/04/2022 5,000     33689/22 21/06/2022 Ilya Ivanovich KURSOV 1997   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul 06/03/2022 06/03/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §   34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2   July 2019) 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 administrative proceedings (in connection with events of 23/02/2022 and 06/03/2022) - final decisions: Altay Regional Court, 13/03/2022 and 30/03/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression   posting an anti-war message on social network, 23/02/2022, Barnaul, article 20.3.3. § 1 of CAO (discrediting Russian armed forces); final decision: Altay Regional Court, 13/03/2022, fine of RUB 30,000   call to take part in an anti-war protest posted online, 26/02/2022, Barnaul, Article 20.2. § 2 of CAO; final decision: Altay Regional Court, 30/03/2022, fine of RUB 20,000 5,000     54968/22 28/10/2022 Mikhail Viktorovich KORENEVSKIY 1986       06/05/2022 07/05/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, §   34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2   July 2019), Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, § 35, 8   October 2019) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 28/06/2022,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - protest against war in Ukraine on 09/05/2022, Moscow, article 20.3.3 §   1 of CAO, fine of RUB   50,000, Moscow City Court, 28/06/2022     5,000     10033/23 13/02/2023 Ilya Yevgenyevich VORONTSOV 1991       10.30 a.m. on 11/09/2022 6 p.m. on 11/09/2022 Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no.   72051/17, §   34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2   July 2019) Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - anti-war drawings on the ballot paper during elections of 11/09/2022, Moscow, article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO, Nagatinskiy District Court, 11/09/2022, fine of RUB   50,000, Moscow City Court, 13/10/2022 5,000     12055/23 10/02/2023 (3 applicants) Dmitriy Sergeyevich BATALIN 1995   Vitaliy Yuryevich GRYAZNOV 1982   Vitaliy Petrovich PODSIVAKA 1951   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Mr Gryaznov:   10/07/2022, 1   p.m. Mr Gryaznov   10/07/2022, 2.15 p.m., raised on appeal Applicant, Mr Gryaznov, taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2   July 2019) Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression   Mr Batalin and Mr Podsivaka were charged under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for having posted a series of anti-war publications on social networks   On 25/08/2022 Mr Batalin was sentenced by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Yaroslavl to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Yaroslavl Regional Court on 10/10/2022)   On 16/06/2022 Mr Podsivaka was sentenced by the Tambovskiy District Court of the Tambov Region to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Tambov Regional Court on 10/10/2022)   On 10/07/2022 Mr Gryaznov took part in a solo piquet. He was charged under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced by the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 01/09/2022 to an administrative fine of RUB 30,000 (upheld by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 12/10/2022) 5,000, to Mr Gryaznov,   and   4,000, to each of the two remaining applicants     12067/23 02/03/2023 Yuriy Aleksadrovich NOSOV 1988       26/04/2022 26/04/2022, raised on appeal Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia , no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v.   Russia [Committee], nos. 50271/06 and 8 other applications, §   35, 2   July 2019), Delay of more than a few hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v. Russia , no.   5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018) Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - administrative conviction under article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO for wearing a green ribbon against war on 26/04/2022; final decision: St   Petersburg City Court, 02/11/2022, fine of RUB   50,000 5,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.