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 } .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 } .sC278ABC0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; 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 NOGOVITSYN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 19054/21 and 3 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 Nogovitsyn 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 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 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 8.     In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     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 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; Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4   others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo demonstrations (see also Nemytov and Others v. Russia , nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, §§   136-151, 27   May 2025 in so far as the application of the COVID-19-related restrictions to public events held by the applicants are concerned); 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; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7   February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events; 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.     Lastly, the applicants made other complaints under various Convention provisions. In view of the findings in paragraphs 8-11 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, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), 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 complaint under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 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 raised by the applicants under various Convention provisions; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under 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 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 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     19054/21 20/03/2021 Anatoliy Grigoryevich NOGOVITSYN 1987   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg (i), administrative fine of RUB   2,000,       (ii) administrative detention of 8 days,   (iii) administrative fine of RUB   3,000,       (iv) administrative detention of 15 days;   (v) administrative detention of 3 days,   (vi) administrative detention of 3 days (i) 01/10/2020, Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)     (ii), (iii) 01/10/2020, Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) - two separate judgments issued on the same date,     (iv), (v), (vi) 05/03/2021   Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) three separate judgments issued on the same date Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) between 25/06/2020 and 26/06/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled; and (ii) from 22/01/2021 to 23/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence records had been compiled,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Yakutsk, 25/06/2020, Protest against constitutional amendments, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, administrative detention of 8 days, and article 20.6.1-1 of CAO, fine of RUB 3,000, 01/10/2020, Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) - two separate judgments issued on the same date,   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - on 21/01/2021 the applicant published calls to participate in rally to support A. Navalnyy scheduled for 23/01/2021 in Yakutsk (Instagram, Youtube, Twitter and Vkontakte) – arrest, conviction in three separate sets of proceedings, three separate final judgments issued on 05/03/2021 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya): (i) article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, administrative detention of 15 days ; (ii) article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, administrative detention of 3 days (conviction for publications posted to Vkontakte and Twitter); (i) article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, administrative detention of 3 days (publications posted to Instagram and Youtube),   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - sentences of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 23/01/2021 (all three sets of proceedings) were executed immediately, on account of the lack of a suspensive effect under the CAO 5,000     19464/21 28/03/2021 Kirill Andreyevich SHISHKANOV 1984   Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow fine of RUB   10,000 28/09/2020 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 18/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence: no evidence / assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the objectives set out in the CAO;   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Protest against constitutional amendments, 18/06/2020, Moscow; article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 10,000; 28/09/2020, Moscow City Court 4,000     23450/21 06/04/2021 Vyacheslav Yevgenyevich ZHIDKIN 1984   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg (i) fine of RUB 1,000     (ii) fine of RUB 1,000 (i) 08/10/2020 Khabarovsk Regional Court   (ii) 14/10/2020 Khabarovsk Regional Court Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Yunost Square, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, 01/12/2019, proposal to change the location, notification procedure, final decision: a judge of the Supreme Court of Russia, 14/12/2020 4,000     33388/21 09/06/2021 Yekaterina Alekseyevna BAZHANOVA 1975   Lokhmutov Aleksandr Sergeyevich Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 10/12/2020 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention for three hours on 18/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence (the record of administrative offence was drawn only on 04/08/2020),   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - Moscow, 18/06/2020, Picket in support of K. Kotov, article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000, 10/12/2020, Moscow City Court 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.