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 } .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 } .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 } .sE157FEB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF KHAKIM AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 73423/14 and 10 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 Khakim 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 disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. Some applicants 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 against solo demonstrators. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8.     In the leading cases of Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017, 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. 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 (the CAO); Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia , 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, §§ 51-75, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia , no. 21613/07,§§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and 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 various provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. 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, and to dismiss the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in cases where such claims were requested and submitted. 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 concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the 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 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 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 expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     73423/14 05/11/2014 Akhmad Dzhavid Abdullovich KHAKIM 1988   Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Sochi 17/02/2014 Support of an arrested ecology activist article 20.2 § 2 of CAO,   fine of RUB   20,000 06/05/2014 Krasnodar Regional Court (copy received on 09/05/2014)   3,500     2315/15 07/10/2014 Elvira Viktorovna BEREZA 1986   Surname changed in 2019 to: GOYMAN   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou 12/06/2013 Syktyvkar Protest against unlawful seizure of assets of a local centre for drug addicts’ rehabilitation article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, no sanction applied as the CAO proceedings were discontinued The administrative proceedings were discontinued on 01/08/2013 by the Syktyvkar Town Court.   The applicant’s claim for compensation was rejected as unfounded by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic of 07/04/2014. Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 12/06/2013 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence report 4,000     29674/16 16/05/2016 Leonid Davidovich DUBROVO 1957   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Neubrandenburg Moscow 06/06/2015 Holding a placard “Putin is today’s Hitler” article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,   fine of RUB   20,000   18/11/2015 Moscow City Court Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     43150/17 08/06/2017 Olga Yakovlevna SONINA 1950   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou Moscow 22/09/2016 Protest against the introduction in the Russian Criminal Code of Article 212.1 allowing for criminal prosecution for a repeated breach of the rules on public gatherings article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,   fine of RUB   10,000 08/12/2016 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 22/09/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing an administrative 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     11799/18 30/11/2017 Darya Vladimirovna CHERNYSHEVA 1991   Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna Moscow Syktyvkar, 17/12/2016, Support of I. Dadin article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,   fine of RUB   10,000 31/05/2017, Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 17/12/2016 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 4,000 to Ms Chernysheva   500 to be paid into the bank account of the Public Verdict Fund, as requested by the applicant       9300/21 25/01/2021 Mariya Mikhaylovna FEDOTOVA 1997   Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna Moscow Red Square, Moscow, 17/03/2020, Protest against the amendments in the Constitution   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,   fine of RUB 10,000   24/08/2020, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 17/03/2020 and (ii) on 18/07/2020, each time for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;   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. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Moscow, 18/07/2020, Protest against amendments to the Family Code - arrest, conviction for participation in a series of solo demonstrations held on 18/07/2020 in Moscow by a group of no less than 25 persons, article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment of 30/11/2020 by the Moscow City Court. 4,000     24511/22 22/04/2022 Damir Tabrisovich SHINGAREYEV 1957       Yekaterinburg, 24/02/2022 "before 5 p.m." (as established by the courts), protest against the war in Ukraine article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, administrative detention of 10 days 05/03/2022, Sverdlovsk Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 8 p.m. on 24/02/2022 and 1.20 a.m. 26/02/2022 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 - both sets of proceedings,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation in an anti-war rally "between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m." on 24/02/2022, administrative fine of RUB 15,000, final judgment issued by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 25/05/2022,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - detention imposed on the applicant on 26/02/2022 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     32849/22 26/06/2022 Yaroslav Olegovich REVENKO 1996   Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich Stavropol Taganrog, 05/03/2022, Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 25,000 11/04/2022 Rostov Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at the police station on 06/03/2022 for the sole purpose of compiling an offence report in respect of the solo demonstration of 05/03/2022,   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. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - arrest, conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 CAO for discreditation of the Russian military forces on account of his anti-war solo demonstration of 05/03/2022, fine of RUB 35,000, final judgment of the Rostov Regional Court 07/04/2022 4,000     36759/22 23/07/2022 Sergey Vladimirovich ZUBAREV 1984       Moscow, 30/10/2021, Support of political prisoners article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 29/03/2022 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station: (i) on 16/10/2021 and (ii) 30/10/2021,   each time for compiling offence reports,   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 - 16/10/2021, event in support of political prisoners, Moscow - arrest, conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment: 23/03/2022, Moscow City Court 4,000   56922/22 26/11/2022 Aleksandr Vladimirovich MALTSEV 1983       Vologda, 06/03/2022, Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 2 of CAO and article 20.3.3   §   1 of CAO, fine of RUB   30,000 16/05/2022 Vologda Regional Court   (copy of the judgment received on 26/07/2022) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 06/03/2022 and 07/03/2022 as administrative suspect, for and after compiling of the offence record   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000   11250/23 27/02/2023 Dmitriy Anatolyevich KASHKO 1972       Moscow, 07/03/2022, Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, administrative fine of RUB 20,000 27/10/2022 Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 07/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.