14662/21;40147/21;49818/22

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SMIRNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 14662/21 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 February 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Smirnov 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 5 February 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 various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. 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 10 of the Convention 7.  The applicants primarily complained of the various restrictions imposed on their right to freedom of expression. They relied, in particular, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8.  In the cases listed in the relevant case-law column in the appendix, the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those raised in the applicants’ cases. 9.  Having examined all the material submitted, the Court has not identified any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. In particular, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not examine the matter in accordance with the principles established in the Court’s case-law. 10.  The Court therefore finds that these complaints are admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  The 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 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; 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings against them. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers 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 concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression 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 the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression; 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); 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 26 February 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 10 of the Convention (various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Summary of facts Final decision Date Name of the court Penalty (award, fine, imprisonment) Legal issues Relevant case-law Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros)[1]     14662/21 16/02/2021 Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV   Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna St Petersburg   and   Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich St Petersburg   On 20/01/2021 the applicant, using his personal Twitter account, re-posted a Twitter entry joking around the applicant’s resemblance with a punk music band soloist who endorsed a protest rally in support of A. Navalny. The tweet contained a photo of the musician, as well as the date and time of an unauthorised rally. The applicant was arrested and convicted under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO for organising a rally in Moscow on 23/01/2021 in support of Navalnyy with reference to the applicant’s repost of the above Twitter entry.   08/02/2021, Moscow City Court administrative detention of 15 days Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, failure to assess the humorous nature of the applicant’s retweet, and, in any event, lack of any “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 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 Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019 (conviction for calls to participate in public events) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention from1.40 p.m. to 9.50 p.m. on 30/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,   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 a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 5,000     40147/21 21/07/2021 Ilya Vilyamovich AZAR   Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow (i) Conviction under art. 20.2 § 8 of CAO for publication of a Facebook post of 12/07/2020 calling for participation in a public event in support of journalist I. Safronov scheduled for 13/07/2020;     (ii) Conviction under art. 20.2 § 8 of CAO for publication of a Facebook post of 11/03/2020 calling for participation in pickets held on rotation basis against the constitutional reform scheduled for 12/03/2020;   (iii) Conviction under article 20.3 § 1 of CAO for having published on Facebook, on 18/08/2021 a post in support of the “Smart Voting” strategy which included the “Smart Voting” campaign logo – a symbol associated with the Navalnyy Campaign Headquarters movement, whose activities had been banned as extremist in Russia. (i) 05/03/2021, Moscow City Court                   (ii) 08/04/2021, Moscow City Court,                   (iii) 07/09/2022, Moscow City Court (i) administrative detention of 15 days,                 (ii) fine of RUB 150,000                     (iii) fine of RUB 2,000 (i), (ii) inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, lack of “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 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,         (iii) Excessively broad interpretation of the concept of extremism (i), (ii) Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019 (conviction for calls to participate in public events),                               (iii) Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) 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: (i) administrative detention of 15 days, final judgment by the Moscow City Court, 05/03/2021; (ii) fine of RUB 150,000, final judgment by the Moscow City Court, 08/04/2021,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 – delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal – the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant on 03/03/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO,   5,000     49818/22 14/10/2022 Irina Yevgenyevna MUZYKA   Kudinova Anna Tamazovna Colmar Conviction under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO (discrediting Russian military) for staging an anti-war solo demonstration in Korolev on 17/04/2022. 16/06/2022 Moscow Regional Court fine of RUB 35,000 Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of legislation criminalising discrediting of armed forces for peaceful expression Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia, nos. 11884/22 and 161 others, 11 February 2025 (conviction for discrediting Russian military) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 17/04/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.