THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DOMOZHIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 23218/17 and 12 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 June 2025

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

In the case of Domozhirov and Others v. Russia,

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

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 22 May 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.

3.  The applicant in application no. 19835/18 lodged written observations. In addition, in the same application third-party comments were received from ARTICLE 19, which had been given leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3).

THE FACTS

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

5.  The applicants, with exception to the two applicants in application no. 10504/18 (for further details see appended table below), complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION

8.  The applicants, save for two applicants in application no. 10504/18 (for further details see appended table below), 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.

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) 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).

10.  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.

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 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”.

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

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

13.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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.

14.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols 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); Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, § 70, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4 February 2020, concerning various shortcomings related to police searches at the applicants’ premises; Butkevich, cited above, §§ 129-39, concerning unjustified interference (measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies) with the applicant’s freedom of expression; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

15.  Some applicants raised further additional complaint under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12-14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  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 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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. 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 decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. Holds

(a)  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;

(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;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 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 11 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)

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