31323/17;33953/17

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SHADRIN AND BOYEV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 31323/17 and 33953/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 February 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shadrin and Boyev 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They also raised other complaints under Article 6 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 6 § 1 of the Convention 7.  The applicants complained principally of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative‑offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 8.  In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  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. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.  The applicants raised further complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraph 10 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), 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, 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings; 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     31323/17 17/04/2017 Denis Petrovich SHADRIN   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Neubrandenburg fine of RUB 5,000 19/10/2016, Leninskiy District Court of Kirov 1,000     33953/17 28/04/2017 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BOYEV   Syntin Artem Vyacheslavovich Omsk suspension of driving licence for 1 year 20/02/2017, Lybinskiy District Court of Omsk Region 1,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.