THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BOGOMOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 9856/16 and 17 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 November 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bogomolov 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 23 October 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

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.

The Russian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. Some of them also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

JURISDICTION

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

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 on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), the Court finds it appropriate to examine their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (see Nemytov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, § 93, 27 May 2025, with further references).

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).

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, and Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 155-58, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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".

These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

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 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); Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant's personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in the proceedings under the CAO, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicant; and 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.

REMAINING COMPLAINTS

The Court also examined the complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention made on 28 August 2020 by the applicant Ms Shatova in application no. 40597/20 concerning her arrest on 11 October 2019 for participation in series of solo demonstrations and her ensuing conviction under the CAO in the final instance on 10 February 2020 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 were lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Masse v. France (dec.), no. 47506/20, 25 March 2025).

Finally, the Court observes that some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023; Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022), the Court considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Mr Zakharov (application no. 18078/20). The Court further finds it reasonable to award the remaining applicants the sums indicated in the appended table (compare Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022).

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 the remainder of application no. 40597/20 related to the applicant's participation in demonstrations and events on 11 October 2019 inadmissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants;

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

(a) that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Mr Zakharov (application no. 18078/20);

(b) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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;

(c) 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 13 November 2025, 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 / criminal 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] 9856/16 10/02/2016 Yuriy Aleksandrovich BOGOMOLOV 1960 Protest against construction of a church in a park Ryazan 22/11/2014 article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Ryazan Regional Court 11/08/2015 3,500 41138/18 14/08/2018 Daniel Telmanovich KURAKIN 1990 Opposition rally Volgograd 28/01/2018 Rally in support of A. Navalnyy Volgograd 31/01/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 fine of RUB 10,000 Volgograd Regional Court 21/02/2018 Volgograd Regional Court 03/03/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention (i) on 28/01/2018, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; (ii) on 31/01/2021 for the same purpose; (iii) between 18/03/2022 and 19/03/2022 as administrative suspect, Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings, Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - arrest, conviction under articles 20.3.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 15 days, on account of the applicant's anti-war solo demonstration held on 18/03/2022 in Volgograd; final judgment issued by the Volgograd Regional Court on 22/03/2022 5,000 14433/19 24/02/2019 Anatoliy Vyacheslavovich SHIRINKIN 1967 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d'Anjou Opposition rally Perm 05/05/2018 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO compulsory community service of 40 hours Perm Regional Court 24/08/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500 10223/20 06/02/2020 and 40597/20 26/08/2020 Aglaya Aleksandrovna SHATOVA 2001 Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius Raised in application no. 10223/20: Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 03/08/2019 Raised in application no. 40597/20 (raised on 09/12/2021): Rally in support of A. Navalnyy Moscow 02/02/2021 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO article 20.2 § 8 of CAO administrative detention of 10 days administrative detention of 7 days Moscow City Court 12/08/2019 Moscow City Court 09/06/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 03/02/2021 and 04/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record 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 proceedings, final judgments of 12/08/2019 and 09/06//2021) 5,000 14714/20 04/03/2020 Anastasiya Mikhaylovna GLUSHKOVA 1999 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d'Anjou Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov Moscow 12/06/2019 Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO fine of RUB 150,000 Moscow City Court 04/09/2019 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 5,500 18078/20 11/03/2020 Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZAKHAROV 1990 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma Moscow 27/07/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 16/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 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 The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction 31259/20 29/06/2020 Sofya Alekseyevna LIPATKINA 2001 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Event in support of political prisoners Moscow 30/12/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 18/02/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention on 31/12/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record, in excess of three hours; failure to draw up an arrest 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 2034/21 26/11/2020 Vitaliy Vladimirovich LEVCHENKO 1996 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Protest against police brutality in the wake of the murder of V.T. Moscow 02/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 14/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record (such record only compiled on 17/06/2020), Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000 2039/21 26/11/2020 Timur Vladislavovich AYSIN 1995 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Protest against police brutality in the wake of the murder of Mr V. T. Moscow 02/06/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 22/09/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 02/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record (such record compiled on 15/06/2020 only), Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000 10439/21 18/01/2021 Vladilen Petrovich YURYEV 1937 Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich Vladivostok Rally in support of S. Furgal Vladivostok 01/08/2020 Rally in support of S. Furgal Vladivostok 15/08/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 fine of RUB 10,000 Primorye Regional Court 24/11/2020 Primorye Regional Court 16/11/2020 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 3,500 31691/21 12/05/2021 Nadezhda Mikhaylovna ZHUYKOVA 1965 Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg Support of arrested journalist I. Azar Moscow 30/05/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 12,000 Moscow City Court 26/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 30/05/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 10/06/2020 only), Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000 43486/21 08/08/2021 Nadezhda Valeryevna YEVGRAFOVA 1988 Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Manifestation for transgender rights, protest against amendments into the Family Code of Russia Moscow 18/07/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 17,000 Moscow City Court 08/02/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention between on 18/07/2020 as an administrative suspect "for a timely and correct examination of the case" (the offence record was compiled on 22/07/2020), Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000 45172/21 17/08/2021 Nikita Vyacheslavovich GRISHCHENKOV 1996 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Rally "Free Navalnyy" Moscow 02/02/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 28/04/2021 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record on 02/02/2021, Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000 18580/22 14/03/2022 Yevgeniya Andreyevna OSTAPENKO 1994 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Event in support of political prisoners Moscow 21/04/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 11/10/2021 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings, Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a solo picketing and her subsequent conviction (raised on appeal) 4,000 45476/22 26/08/2022 Anastasiya Aleksandrovna MIROSHNICHENKO 1997 Sabirov Rim Faridovich Kazan Anti-war protest Kazan 06/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 27/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 06/03/2022, for and after compiling an administrative offence report 4,000 46044/22 15/09/2022 Vasiliy Pavlovich SHTEFAN 1989 Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg Anti-war protest Kazan 27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fide of RUB 10,000 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 08/06/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 27/02/2022, for and after compiling 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 47704/22 18/09/2022 Larisa Vladislavovna KHUSANOVA 1973 Sabirov Rim Faridovich Kazan Anti-war rally Kazan 13/03/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 5,000 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 18/05/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 13/03/2022 and 14/03/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record was compiled, Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - arrest, conviction under article 20.3.3 of the CAO, fine of RUB 30,000 on account of the contents of an anti-war slogan ("Your comrades killed my niece the day before yesterday!") shouted by the applicant during the rally of 13/03/2022, which authorities deemed to discredit the Russian Armed Forces; final judgment by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan of 18/05/2022 5,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.