49274/20;49279/20;49287/20;49288/20;49295/20

THIRD SECTION CASE OF VATAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 49274/20 and 4 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 Vatayev 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 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 the provisions of the Convention and Protocols thereto. 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. 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 Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in the light of the Court’s findings in Martynyuk v. Russia (no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019) relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against administrative detention. Remaining complaints 12.  The applicants also raised other complaints under Article 11 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 8-11 above, the Court considers that it does not need to deal separately with those 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, 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 facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints under 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 and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it does not need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of 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 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     49274/20 20/10/2020 Khetag Umarbekovich VATAYEV   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk administrative detention of 15 days 30/04/2020 Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - The administrative arrest imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO 1,000     49279/20 20/10/2020 Batraz Ruslanovich GAGIYEV   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk administrative detention of 15 days 30/04/2020 Supreme Court of Republic of North Ossetia-Alania 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 1,000     49287/20 20/10/2020 Alan Soltanovich KOTSOYEV   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk administrative detention of 15 days 01/05/2020 Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania 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 1,000     49288/20 20/10/2020 Kazbek Olegovich KASAYEV   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk administrative detention of 15 days 30/04/2020 Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania 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 1,000     49295/20 20/10/2020 Ramis Akhmetovich CHIRKINOV   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk administrative detention of 15 days 01/05/2020 Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania 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 1,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.