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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF FEDOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 73386/17 and 3 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fedorov 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 9 April 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 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 taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. 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   11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article   11 of the Convention. 8.     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). 9.     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, Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013 and, where relevant, Nemytov and Others v. Russia , nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, 27   May 2025, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     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 interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.    OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     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. 13.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints 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); 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; and Tatár and Fáber v.   Hungary , nos.   26005/08 and 26160/08, §§ 36-42, 12 June 2012, concerning restrictions on public performance as an avenue for political expression.      REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article   6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs   8 ‑ 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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), the Court finds 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 complaints under Article 11 of the Convention 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 under Article 6 of the Convention;      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   11 of the Convention;      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);      Holds   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;   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 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 List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     73386/17 05/10/2017 Andrey Andreyevich FEDOROV 1988   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Opposition rally   Cheboksary   05/05/2018 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 20 hours of community work Supreme Court of Chuvashia Republic 07/06/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in relation to the proceedings in which the final decision was taken on 13/04/2017 and 07/06/2018,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant together with three other persons was convicted under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for having publicly displayed a banner "You will not kill everyone, you will not imprison everyone" accompanied by lighting flares at the bridge in Cheboksary on 25/02/2017, fined RUB 10,000; final decision 13/04/2017 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic (see Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary , nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, §§ 36-42, 12 June 2012),   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - solo demonstration on 20/08/2020 in Cheboksary in support of A. Navalnyy, conviction under article 20.2 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final judgment of 15/10/2020 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 5,000     21760/21 07/04/2021 Gennadiy Yevgenyevich PLATONOV 1963   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Protest against constitutional amendments   Lipetsk   08/08/2020   Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Lipetsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO               article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB   10,000             fine of RUB   75,000 Lipetsk Regional Court 08/10/2020           Lipetsk Regional Court 01/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.35 p.m. until 8.45 p.m. on 23/01/2021,   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     4,850     38835/21 20/07/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich KAFTANATIY 1996   Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Tambov   31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 3 of CAO     and   article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO administrative detention of 15 days,   and   fine of RUB   15,000 Tambov Regional Court, 05/02/2021   and   Tambov Regional Court 01/04/2021 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,     5,000     58133/21 11/11/2021 Bulat Saylauyevich SHUMEKOV 1990   Miropoltsev Dmitriy Dmitriyevich Kaltan Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Novokuznetsk   23/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB   12,000 Kemerovo Regional Court 24/05/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record; (ii) arrest on the applicant’s arrival to a police station, detention between 23/04/2021 and 24/04/2021 as administrative suspect - "for taking a lawful decision" with reference to Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO and 20.6.1 § 1 of the CAO (as per the arrest record), and pending trial, after the offence record under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO had been compiled,   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 administrative proceedings – (i) conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 12,000, final judgment of 24/05/2021 by the Kemerovo Regional Court, and (ii) conviction under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 2,000, final judgment of 28/06/2021 by the Kemerovo Regional Court. 4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.