CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 avril 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s974F4397 { margin-left:17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .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 } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 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 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF POLYAKOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 21359/20)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Polyakov 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 9 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.     The applicant complained of the disproportionate measures taken against him as organiser or participant in public events, in breach of Article   11 of the Convention (for further details see appended table). THE LAW         JURISDICTION 4.     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 application (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 5.     The applicant principally complained of disproportionate measures taken against him as a participant in a public event, namely its dispersal and his subsequent conviction for an administrative offence. He relied on Article   11 of the Convention. 6.     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) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v.   Turkey , no.   74552/01, ECHR   2006 ‑ XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v.   Moldova , no.   33482/06, 31   March 2009). 7.     In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts)), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia (no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014) and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8 .     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 as to 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 interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly, as described in columns nos. 4-7 of the appended table, was not “necessary in a democratic society”. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 11 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see column no. 8 of the 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. 11 .     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia (nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7   February 2017) and Pleshkov and Others v.   Russia (nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, §§ 66-69, 21   November 2023), regarding restrictions on location or timing of public events, and Nemytov and Others v. Russia (no. 1257/21 and 2 others, §§ 136-51, 27 May 2025) in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID-19-related restrictions to public events is concerned.    REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicant raised further additional complaints under Article 11 of the Convention. 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 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).      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, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   25809/17 and 14 others, §   22, 4   October 2022, and Pleshkov and Others , cited above, § 76), the Court finds it reasonable to award the applicant 3,500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the application as it relates to facts that took place before 16   September 2022;      Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, as indicated in the appended table, admissible and holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints;      Holds that these complaints, as described in the appended table, disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention, both as regards the complaint about his participation in a manifestation, as well as his attempts to organise the manifestations;      Holds   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,500 (three thousand and five hundred euros), 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 amount 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 30 April 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law 21359/20 28/04/2020 Yuriy Ivanovich POLYAKOV 1952   Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich Belgorod Political rally   Belgorod   17/08/2019 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 20 hours of community work Belgorod Regional Court 16/03/2020 Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Belgorod administration’s refusals to approve the locations and dates of several political public events planned by the applicant in Belgorod (final decisions taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation):   (1) on 13/12/2019 - proposal to change the location because another public event has already been planned; final decision 22/06/2020;   (2) on 08/09/2020 - regional ban on holding public events in view of COVID-19 restrictions; final decision 15/03/2021;   (3) on 18/09/2020 - regional ban on holding public events in view of COVID-19 restrictions; final decision 22/03/2021;   (4) on 22/09/2020 - regional ban on holding public events in view of COVID-19 restrictions; final decision 24/03/2021;   (5) on 09/11/2020 - regional ban on holding public events in view of COVID-19 restrictions; final decision 27/04/2021.