13461/22;20984/22;31267/22;33610/22;33615/22;33620/22;35559/22;35978/22;36846/22;37115/22;37246/22;37248/22;37286/22;37302/22;38453/22;38843/22;38845/22;38846/22
WyrokETPCz2025-11-13ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1113JUD001346122
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy środki podjęte przeciwko organizatorom i uczestnikom zgromadzeń publicznych, w tym aresztowania i skazania administracyjne, były proporcjonalne i zgodne z prawem do wolności zgromadzeń (art. 11 Konwencji) oraz innymi prawami konwencyjnymi, takimi jak prawo do wolności i bezpieczeństwa (art. 5), prawo do rzetelnego procesu (art. 6) i prawo do odwołania w sprawach karnych (art. 2 Protokołu nr 7)?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał uznał, że środki podjęte przeciwko skarżącym, polegające na aresztowaniach i skazaniach administracyjnych za udział w zgromadzeniach publicznych, w tym w kontekście ograniczeń związanych z COVID-19, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w ich prawo do wolności zgromadzeń. Opierając się na swoim ugruntowanym orzecznictwie, Trybunał stwierdził, że ingerencje te nie były 'konieczne w społeczeństwie demokratycznym'. Dodatkowo, Trybunał stwierdził naruszenia innych artykułów Konwencji i Protokołów, w tym dotyczące bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności (art. 5 ust. 1), braku bezstronności w postępowaniach administracyjnych (art. 6 ust. 1) oraz braku efektu zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego (art. 2 Protokołu nr 7), odwołując się do wcześniejszych wyroków w podobnych sprawach.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli organizatorami lub uczestnikami zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, w tym wieców poparcia dla Nawalnego i protestów antywojennych. Zostali aresztowani i skazani za wykroczenia administracyjne na podstawie art. 20.2.2. § 1 Kodeksu Wykroczeń Administracyjnych (CAO), często na kary aresztu, za naruszenie przepisów dotyczących zgromadzeń, w tym ograniczeń związanych z COVID-19. Skarżący zarzucali nieproporcjonalne środki podjęte przeciwko nim, bezprawne pozbawienie wolności, brak bezstronności w postępowaniach administracyjnych oraz brak efektu zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: decyduje o połączeniu skarg; uznaje, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia skarg, ponieważ dotyczą faktów, które miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r.; uznaje skargi na podstawie art. 11 Konwencji oraz inne skargi na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału za dopuszczalne i stwierdza, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego rozpatrywania pozostałych skarg na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji; stwierdza naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji; stwierdza naruszenie Konwencji i Protokołów do niej w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału; zasądza od pozwanego państwa na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem zadośćuczynienia, płatne w ciągu trzech miesięcy, wraz z odsetkami za opóźnienie.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SERGEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 13461/22 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 Sergeyev 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
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, notably in connection with their participation in various public events in breach of COVID-19-related restrictions. 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 in connection with their participation in various public events in breach of COVID-19-related restrictions, 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). It further refers to Nemytov and Others v. Russia, no. 1257/21 and 2 others, 27 May 2025, in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID-19-related restrictions to assemblies are concerned.
9. In the leading case of Nemytov and Others (cited above) the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see further 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).
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. The 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.
13. 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); 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.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. 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 11 and 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, mutatis mutandis, 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 the 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 and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
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.
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]
13461/22
14/02/2022
Anton Vasilyevich SERGEYEV
Podolskiy Sergey Viktorovich
St Petersburg
Rally in support of Navalnyy
St Petersburg
21/04/2021
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 7 days
St Petersburg City Court
26/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 2.00 a.m. on 22/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
20984/22
11/04/2022
David Teymurazovich SEPASHVILI
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
23/11/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until the court’s hearing held on 01/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
31267/22
06/06/2022
Igor Petrovich BUZHINSKIY
Podolskiy Sergey Viktorovich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
24/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
05/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.38 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 7.00 p.m. on 26/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
33610/22
20/06/2022
Stepan Vasilyevich BERDINSKIKH
Gerasimov Dmitriy Georgiyevich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
10/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.16 a.m. on 27/02/2022 until 5.20 p.m. on 28/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
33615/22
20/06/2022
Leyla Ibragimovna TEYYUBOVA
Gerasimov Dmitriy Georgiyevich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
25/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 6 days
St Petersburg
City Court
22/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 10.30 p.m. on 25/02/2022 until 2.00 a.m. on 26/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
33620/22
20/06/2022
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich SUKHAREV
Gerasimov Dmitriy Georgiyevich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
01/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 14 days
St Petersburg City Court
29/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.15 p.m. on 01/03/2022 until the court’s hearing held on 02/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
35559/22
30/06/2022
Ulyana Nikolayevna IGOSHEVA
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
24/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 8 days
St Petersburg City Court
04/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.50 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 4.45 p.m. on 25/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
35978/22
09/07/2022
Mariya Sergeyevna KRASNOPEROVA
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
24/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
10/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
36846/22
14/07/2022
Maksim Vitalyevich TOPORSKIY
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
detention for 15 days
St Petersburg City Court
15/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 10.00 a.m. on 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
37115/22
13/07/2022
Roman Vasilyevich SAMOYLOV
Tkachenko Ilya Valeryevich
Kogalym
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 14 days
St Petersburg City Court
14/03/2022
4,000
37246/22
14/07/2022
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SERGUNOV
Pilipenko Anastasiya Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
15/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.40 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 9.30 a.m. on 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
37248/22
14/07/2022
Lyudmila Borisovna KIRILLOVA
Pilipenko Anastasiya Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
15/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.40 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 10.20 a.m. on 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
37286/22
14/07/2022
Ivan Viktorovich VORONTSOV
Pilipenko Anastasiya Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 15 days
St Petersburg City Court
16/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until the court’s hearing held on 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
37302/22
14/07/2022
Pavel Sergeyevich MIKHAYLOV
Pilipenko Anastasiya Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
16/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 5.20 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until the court’s hearing held on 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
38453/22
22/07/2022
Ivan Aleksandrovich SOKOLOV
Gerasimova Yekaterina Viktorovna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 2 days
St Petersburg City Court
26/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.50 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 4.08 p.m. on 28/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
38843/22
29/07/2022
Zaven Rubenovich DEMIRCHYAN
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
24/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 12 days
St Petersburg City Court
29/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
38845/22
29/07/2022
Anton Yuryevich DITRIKHS
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
02/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 12 days
St Petersburg City Court
29/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.10 p.m. on 02/03/2022 until the court’s hearing held on 03/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
38846/22
29/07/2022
Yuliya Antonovna LUKHT
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
St Petersburg City Court
29/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.45 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 4.47 p.m. 28/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło