THIRD SECTION

CASE OF YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 22584/19 and 11 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 March 2025

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

In the case of Yegorov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,

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 various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. standing of the applicant’s wife to pursue application No. 22137/21

7.  Following Mr Borodin’s demise in 2022, his wife, Ms Tatyana Anatolyevna Borodina, expressed a wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in relation to application no. 22137/21 lodged by her late husband in 2021.

8.  The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII).

9.  In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Borodina has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For practical reasons, Mr Borodin will continue to be referred to as “the applicant” in this judgment.

4. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

10.  The applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention,

11.  In the leading case of Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court held, in particular, that there was no “pressing social need” to convict the applicant for making calls to participate in a public event where the breach of the procedure for the conduct of public events was minor, did not create any real risk of public disorder or crime, and had no potential to lead to harmful consequences for public safety or the rights of others.

12.  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 there was no “a pressing social need” to convict the applicants for making calls to participate in a public event and therefore the interference with their right to freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society.

13.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

5. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

14.  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 they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 104‑05 and 114, 5 July 2016, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the absence of relevant and sufficient reasons for the house arrest of an organiser of a public assembly; 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; Karatayev v. Russia [Committee], no. 56109/07, §§ 21-27, 13 July 2021, with further references, and, mutatis mutandis, RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 109-10, 11 May 2021, as to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression; Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, concerning lack of reasons for administrative escorting of the participants of public assemblies to the police station for compiling an offence record and detention there; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the delayed review and lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.

6. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

15.   Having examined all the material before it, and given the findings in paragraphs 12 and 14 above, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately additional complaints raised by some of the applicants under various Convention provisions (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, ECHR 2014; Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 122, 3 October 2017; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).

7.          APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares that Ms Borodina has standing to pursue application no. 22137/21 in her late husband’s stead;
4. Declares the complaints under Article 10 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 it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants;
5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
7. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, and in application no. 22137/21 to the applicant’s heir, Ms Borodina, 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;

(b)  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;

8. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention

(various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression)

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