CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 4878/18 Aleksandr Borisovich KLUBOV and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   February 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13   December 2017, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr E. Mezak, who resides in Saint ‑ Barthélemy-d’Anjou, France. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Complaints lodged by Mr Melnikov On 21   October 2020 the applicants’ representative informed the Registry that Mr Melnikov had died on 13   May 2020. No heirs have since expressed a wish to pursue the application. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in respect of the complaints lodged by Mr   Melnikov. Accordingly, this part of the case should be struck out of the list. Complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) lodged by Mr Klubov, Mr   Nechayev and Mr Samarin The Court reiterates that, under Article 35 of the Convention, it shall not deal with any application that is substantially the same as a matter that it has already examined. The Court notes that the complaints about unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention from 12 to 13   June 2017 are substantially the same as the matter already examined by the Court (see Zakharova and Others v.   Russia [Committee], no.   43102/15 and 24 others, 4   July 2024, concerning application no.   5522/18 lodged by Mr Klubov on 8   January 2018; and Gorodilov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no.   75194/17 and 39 others, 14   May 2024, concerning application no.   3541/18 lodged by Mr Nechayev on 29   December 2017 and application no.   3016/18 lodged by Mr Samarin on 29   December 2017). It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 2 (b) and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints Mr Klubov, Mr Nechayev and Mr Samarin also raised other complaints under Article   3 of the Convention. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decide to strike the application out of its list of cases insofar as it concerns Mr Sergey Yuryevich Melnikov; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 26   February 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   5 § 1 of the Convention (unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty)) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start date of detention End date of detention Alleged defects 4878/18 13/12/2017   Aleksandr Borisovich KLUBOV 1974   Sergey Yuryevich MELNIKOV 1964   Petr Andreyevich NECHAYEV 1975   Nikita Aleksandrovich SAMARIN 1994   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou 12/06/2017 13/06/2017 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)