48320/19;41307/20;43813/20;10718/21;16046/21;18542/21;23442/21;49949/21;53251/21;22067/22;34705/22;47140/22;52477/22

THIRD SECTION CASE OF PETROSYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48320/19 and 12 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 September 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Petrosyan and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Kovatcheva, President,  Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 28 August 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.  Domestic courts found that the applicants had staged their solo demonstrations in the vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the official residence of the President of Russia, where public events were prohibited, and convicted them under various CAO provisions. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. Some applicants 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 against solo demonstrators in connection with their having breached the ban on public events in the vicinity of the Kremlin, the residence of the President of Russia. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8.  In the leading case Nemytov and Others v. Russia (nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, §§ 159-163, 27 May 2025), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017). 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. 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”. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  Some 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. 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), as well as to awards made by the Court to some of the applicants earlier (see, for instance, Nemytov and Others, cited above), 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 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of 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 and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under 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 18 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva  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]     48320/19 26/08/2019 Gayane Aregovna PETROSYAN   Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna Moscow Red Square (according to the official records) or Voskresentskiye Gate (according to the applicant), Moscow, 15/09/2018 Ssupport of O. Sentsov article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 26/02/2019, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 15/09/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the goals set out in the CAO,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. 4,000     41307/20 28/08/2020 Tatyana Aleksandrovna CHERNOVA   Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow Kremlevskaya Embankment, Moscow 07/12/2019 Support of political prisoners article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 28/02/2020, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/12/2019 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     43813/20 10/09/2020 Yuliya Yevgenyevna PAVLIKOVA   Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich Moscow Kremlevskaya Embankment, Moscow 07/12/2019 Support of political prisoners article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10б,000 10/03/2020, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 07/12/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing 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     10718/21 08/02/2021 Kristina Igorevna DUBININA   Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Manezhnaya square, Moscow 14/07/2020 Art photo session   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 20/10/2020, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 14/07/2020 for the sole purpose of compiling an administrative 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     16046/21 05/03/2021 Ibragim Abukarovich BARAKHOYEV   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Red Square, Moscow 11/05/2020 Drawing attention to the applicant’s poor social and economic situation article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 18/01/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 11/05/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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. 4,000     18542/21 17/03/2021 Lenar Irekovich YUSUPOV   Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk Red Square, Moscow 15/08/2020 Protest against premature authorisation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Russia article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 04/12/2020, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station, detention on 15/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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. 4,000     23442/21 10/04/2021 Daniil Alekseyevich GALITSKIY   Rossius Aleksandra Andreyevna Moscow Red Square, Moscow 21/12/2019 Holding a placard with a smiley (as a "social experiment") article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, fine of RUB 75,000 14/10/2020, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 21/12/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing 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. 4,800     49949/21 17/09/2021 Anatoliy Aleksandrovich CHISTOV   Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich Moscow Red Square, Moscow 18/11/2020 Protest ("performance") against cancellation of New Year celebrations article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 22/03/2021, Moscow City 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     53251/21 17/09/2021 Kirill Sergeyevich NASONOV   Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Red Square, Moscow 09/03/2021 Protest against living conditions in Russia article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 05/07/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 09/03/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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. 4,000   22067/22 15/04/2022 Igor Gennadyevich TATAROV       Red Square, Moscow 28/06/2021  Protest against President Putin article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 15/10/2021, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 28/06/2021 for the sole purpose of 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. 4,000   34705/22 11/07/2022 Viktor Aleksandrovich NEMYTOV   Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna Barnaul Red Square, Moscow 29/03/2022 Anti-war protest   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 25 days 06/04/2022, Moscow City Court   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 29/03/2022 until 30/03/2022,   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. 3,000   47140/22 12/09/2022 Vyacheslav Vasilyevich ILNITSKIY   Aleksandrovskiy Garden, Moscow 24/02/2022 Anti-war protest article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000 01/07/2022, Moscow City Court   3,500   52477/22 31/10/2022 Andrey Vasilyevich VLASYUK   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Manezhnaya Square, Moscow 01/03/2022 Anti-war protest   article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000 01/07/2022, Moscow City Court Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, taking to a police station, detention on 01/03/2022 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.