CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 26 février 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF VIKTOR SOROKIN v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 17836/14 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 February 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Viktor Sorokin 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 5 February 2026, 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 applicant was represented by Mr V. Khrapko, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk. 3.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicant complained of restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 7.     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   11 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     The applicant complained of the restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events. He relied on Article 11 of the Convention. 9.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references). 10.     In the leading case of 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. 11.     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 applicant’s freedom of assembly were either based on legal provisions which did not meet the Convention’s “quality of law” requirements, or were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     The applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention. The Court does not find that these complaints require separate examination in view of its findings in paragraphs 8-12 above. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Having regard to the nature of the applicant’s complaints, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage the applicant may have suffered (see, among recent authorities, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29356/19 and   31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023; see also, mutatis mutandis , Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27   November 2018). 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 11 of the Convention admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicant; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 February 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 11 of the Convention (restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Location Date of the public event planned Restrictions applied Final domestic decision (type of procedure) Date Name of the court     17836/14 31/07/2013 Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN 1969   Novosibirsk 15/10/2012 - 17/10/2012 prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 18/04/2013     17838/14 01/08/2013 Novosibirsk 15/03/2013     Novosibirsk 22/03/2013     Novosibirsk 23/03/2013     Novosibirsk 28/03/2013     Novosibirsk 29/03/2013     Novosibirsk 31/03/2013     Novosibirsk 02/04/2013     Novosibirsk 10/04/2013     Novosibirsk 11/04/2013     Novosibirsk 17/04/2013     Novosibirsk 18/04/2013     Novosibirsk 23/04/2013     Novosibirsk 24/04/2013     Novosibirsk 07/05/2013       Novosibirsk 08/05/2013 prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly     prohibition on holding the planned public assembly notification procedure, Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, 10/04/2013, proceedings discontinued at the applicant’s request as the date of the meeting had passed   notification procedure, Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, 24/05/2013, proceedings discontinued at the applicant’s request as the date of the meeting had passed   notification procedure, Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, 24/05/2013, proceedings discontinued at the applicant’s request as the date of the meeting had passed   notification procedure, Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, 10/04/2013, proceedings discontinued at the applicant’s request as the date of the meeting had passed   notification procedure, Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, 10/04/2013, proceedings discontinued at the applicant’s request as the date of the meeting had passed   notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 28/10/2013     notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 28/10/2013     notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 25/02/2014     notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 25/02/2014     notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 04/12/2013     notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 04/12/2013     notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 19/12/2013, rejecting the applicant’s request to restore the time-limit for an appeal   notification procedure, Novosibirsk Regional Court, 19/12/2013, rejecting the applicant’s request to restore the time-limit for an appeal   notification procedure, Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, 21/05/2013, proceedings discontinued at the applicant’s request as the date of the meeting had passed     notification procedure, Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk, 21/05/2013, proceedings discontinued at the applicant’s request as the date of the meeting had passed     17839/14 31/07/2013 Novosibirsk 20/08/2012 - 23/08/2012   prohibition on holding the planned public assembly notification procedure, final decision: Novosibirsk Regional Court, 24/04/2013