37069/22;44816/22;45190/22;45917/22;46016/22;46037/22;47923/22;2641/23

THIRD SECTION CASE OF KUZNETSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 37069/22 and 7 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 January 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kuznetsov 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 18 December 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 staged solo demonstrations on various dates in early 2022. Their demonstrations were discontinued, the applicants were arrested for compiling offence reports and prosecuted in administrative-offence proceedings for breaches of regional COVID-19-related bans on public events in force in the relevant regions. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. 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 complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016). 8.  In the leading case of Novikova and Others (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court 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 and solo protestors is concerned. 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 as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 10.  In particular, the Court acknowledges that wide margin of appreciation was allowed to the authorities dealing with the COVID-19 health crisis at the time of the events (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 115‑17 and Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain, no. 49363/20, § 81, 17 October 2024). At the time of the events in these cases, the virus was still actively circulating (see Pasquinelli and Others v. San Marino, no. 24622/22, § 99, 29 August 2024), and some remaining COVID‑19‑related restrictions were still in place in Russian region, generally pursuing a pressing social need to protect individual and public health (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, § 139). 11.  However, by the time of relevant events, that is by early 2022 (see the appended table), various COVID-19-related restrictions had been progressively lifted in the relevant Russian regions. The Court notes that the regime of strict lockdowns in those regions had no longer been in force since 2020. Most of the COVID-19-related restrictions had been altered or eased. The public transport systems were operating as normal, shopping malls were open, and educational activities were continuing as usual. Sports, cultural and entertainment events could be held indoors and outdoors, albeit with some restrictions. Those remaining restrictions was gradually being lifted in the relevant regions. 12.  Under these circumstances, no sufficient justification has been advanced as to why regional bans on all and any forms of protest - including, as in the present cases, solo demonstrations - were maintained, while leisure activities were allowed under certain conditions. Therefore, the Court cannot share the domestic courts’ succinct conclusions that the state of high alert constituted a sufficient basis for restricting the applicants’ right to freedom of expression (see Nemytov and Others, § 145). 13.  Furthermore, in the present cases the solo demonstrations were immediately discontinued by the authorities, and each of the applicants was subject to arrest. By the swift termination of the demonstrations the authorities failed to display the expected “tolerance” towards peaceful protestors which could have consisted, for instance, in allowing the applicants to complete their demonstrations (see Novikova and Others, cited above, § 175); and the applicants’ arrests sat ill with the aims of “protection of health” and “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” in the pandemic context (see Nemytov and Others, § 147). Lastly, the judicial decisions assessing the above interferences in the applicants’ right to freedom of expression lacked a meaningful proportionality analysis (ibid., § 148). 14.  Therefore, the interferences in the applicants’ cases in the form of discontinuation of the solo demonstrations, the applicants’ arrests and, in one of the cases (application no. 44816/22), the sanction of administrative detention were disproportionate to the aim pursued, and the domestic authorities overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them (see, mutatis mutandis, Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 128-30 and 136‑51). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 15.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 16.  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. Remaining complaints 17.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 14-16 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.  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 under Article 10 of the Convention and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 22 January 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 (disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date Purpose of the demonstration Administrative charges Penalty Final domestic decision Date Name of the 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]     37069/22 19/07/2022 Sergey Viktorovich KUZNETSOV   Kychin Aleksey Mikhaylovich Arkhangelsk Arkhangelsk 25/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 3,000 12/05/2022 Arkhangelsk Regional Court Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     44816/22 02/09/2022 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KAPUSTIN       (i) Krasnoyarsk 13/01/2022 Protest against transfer of the Russian troops to Kazakhstan;     (ii) Krasnoyarsk 13/02/2022 Anti-war protest         (iii) Krasnoyarsk 11/06/2022 Support of political opposition (i) article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 3,000,         (ii) article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 3,000,     (iii) article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, administrative detention of 3 days (i) 04/05/2022 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court           (ii) 25/05/2022 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court         (iii) 22/06/2022 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station (i) on 13/02/2022 for compiling an offence record; and (ii) between 11/06/2022 and 12/06/2022 as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in two sets of administrative proceedings (in connection with events of 13/02/2022 and 11/06/2022)   5,000     45190/22 22/08/2022 Yelena Valentinovna SAFRONOVA       Blagoveschensk 26/02/2022 Anti-war protest   article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 1,000 11/05/2022 Amur Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record 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 4,000     45917/22 04/09/2022 Dmitriy Sergeyevich TOKMAKOV       30/04/2022 Omsk Anti-war protest   article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, administrative warning 05/07/2022 Omsk Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to the police station on 30/04/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of 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     46016/22 17/09/2022 Natalya Vladimirovna SEMENOVA   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Cheboksary 28/02/2022 Anti-war protest   article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 1,000 14/06/2022 Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     46037/22 17/09/2022 Sergey Vladimirovich MALOV   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Cheboksary 26/02/2022 Anti-war protest   article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 1,000 07/06/2022 Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 3,500     47923/22 25/09/2022 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOLIBERDA   Munskiy Nikolay Vladimirovich Krasnoyarsk 13/03/2022 Krasnoyarsk Anti-war protest article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, administrative warning 25/05/2022 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station on 13/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 4,000     2641/23 27/11/2022 Aleksandr Valeryevich KUPRIYANOV       Krasnoyarsk 01/05/2022 Anti-war protest   article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, administrative warning 27/07/2022 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 01/05/2022 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.