35602/18;56790/21

THIRD SECTION CASE OF DOMOZHIROV AND KOCHKUNOV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 35602/18 and 56790/21)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 November 2025       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Domozhirov and Kochkunov 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They 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 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.  The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirement allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article 6 of the Convention. 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. 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 well‑established case-law (see 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; Savva Terentiyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018, as to criminal conviction for insulting a public official; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; 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). 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. 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 applications admissible; Holds that these applications 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 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 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 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     35602/18 24/07/2018 Yevgeniy Valeryevich DOMOZHIROV   Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod fines of RUB 1,000 and RUB 2,000, administrative detention of 3 days (event of 27/04/2020), 20 days (event of 20/04/2021) 06/07/2020, 12/10/2020, 19/10/2020, 02/09/2020, 22/04/2021   Vologda Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 27-28/04/2020 (relevant complaint lodged before the Court on 05/01/2021, final domestic decision issued on 06/07/2020) and on 06/07/2020 between 10.49 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. (relevant complaint lodged before the Court on 28/02/2021, final domestic decision issued on 02/09/2020) and on 20-21/04/2021;   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on account of his convictions:   (1) on 26/01/2018 under Art. 319 Criminal Code for having publicly insulted a police officer, sentence: 60 hours of community works (Savva Terentiyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018); (2) on 22/04/2021 under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO for having published calls in social media for participation in a rally "Free Navalnyy" in Vologda on 21/04/2021; other restrictions, including on account of his repeated convictions for breaking self-isolation rules and thus preventing him from collecting and publishing information on issues of public interest (construction of a kindergarten in a park). 7,000     56790/21 22/10/2021 Arkadiy Vladimirovich KOCHKUNOV   Kopteyeva Anastasiya Vladimirovna Chita detention of 20 days 21/04/2021 Zabaykalskiy Regional Court   (decision served on the applicant on the following day) Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression on account of his conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO for having published on 20/04/2021 in social media a call for the participation in the rally "Free Navalnyy" on 21/04/2021,   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   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.