50146/20;11334/21;11441/21;31209/21;31327/21;40482/21;54835/21;56741/21;57958/21;59841/21;7958/22;17661/22;31185/22;36740/22;39237/22;9430/23
WyrokETPCz2026-04-30ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0430JUD005014620
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy regionalne zakazy zgromadzeń publicznych wprowadzone w Rosji w związku z pandemią COVID-19, w czasie gdy inne aktywności społeczne i komercyjne zostały wznowione, stanowiły nieproporcjonalne ograniczenie wolności zgromadzeń, naruszając art. 11 Konwencji?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał uznał, że władze krajowe, choć dysponowały szerokim marginesem oceny w zarządzaniu kryzysem zdrowotnym COVID-19, przekroczyły ten margines. Stwierdził, że w czasie, gdy inne aktywności (transport, handel, edukacja, sport, kultura) zostały wznowione z zachowaniem środków sanitarnych, utrzymywanie regionalnych zakazów wszelkich form protestu było nieuzasadnione. Brak wystarczającego uzasadnienia dla utrzymywania zakazów protestów, podczas gdy inne aktywności były dozwolone, doprowadził do wniosku o nieproporcjonalności ingerencji w prawo do wolności zgromadzeń.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący to obywatele Rosji, którzy skarżyli się na ograniczenia dotyczące miejsca, czasu i sposobu prowadzenia zgromadzeń publicznych. Ograniczenia te zostały nałożone na podstawie regionalnych zakazów organizowania wydarzeń publicznych w związku z pandemią COVID-19. Skarżący planowali różnego rodzaju zgromadzenia, w tym polityczne wiece i protesty, które zostały zakazane lub uniemożliwione przez władze krajowe.Rozstrzygnięcie
Decyduje o połączeniu skarg;
Uznaje, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia skarg, ponieważ dotyczą one faktów, które miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r.;
Uznaje skargi dotyczące art. 11 Konwencji, w zakresie opisanym w załączonej tabeli, za dopuszczalne i stwierdza, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego rozpatrywania pozostałych skarg;
Stwierdza, że skargi te ujawniają naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji w odniesieniu do wydarzeń opisanych w załączonej tabeli;
Uznaje, że stwierdzenie naruszenia stanowi samo w sobie wystarczające zadośćuczynienie.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GRIGORYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 50146/20 and 15 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 April 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Grigoryeva 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 9 April 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 restrictions on the location, timing and manner of conduct of public events, imposed pursuant to regional prohibitions on holding public events in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 11 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally of the restrictions on the location, timing and manner of conduct of public events, as described in the appended table. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.
8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references).
9. In the leading cases of Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017) and Kablis v. Russia (nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, 30 April 2019) 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 is concerned.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-19-related extension of the period in question), 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.
11. In particular, the Court reiterates that the authorities enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in addressing the COVID-19 health crisis at the material time (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 115-17, and Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain, no. 49363/20, § 81, 17 October 2024). As the virus was still actively circulating and certain COVID-19 restrictions remained in force in the Russian regions concerned, those measures pursued the pressing social need of protecting individual and public health (see Pasquinelli and Others v. San Marino, no. 24622/22, § 99, 29 August 2024, and Nemytov and Others, cited above, § 139).
12. However, by the time of the events at issue (see the appended table), the strict lockdown regimes introduced in spring 2020 were no longer in force in the relevant Russian regions, and COVID-19-related restrictions had been progressively eased. Public transport was operating normally, shopping centres and commercial venues were open, educational activities were continuing in person, and sports, cultural and entertainment events could be held, subject to sanitary safeguards and, in some instances, capacity limits. This regulatory model thus relied primarily on hygiene requirements and targeted restrictions rather than on a general suspension of public life and activities.
13. In these circumstances, no sufficient justification has been advanced for maintaining regional bans on all forms of public protest, while permitting leisure and commercial activities under certain conditions. The Court is therefore not convinced that the domestic courts’ reliance on the “high alert” regime, taken in itself, constituted a sufficient basis for restricting the applicants’ rights under Article 11 (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, § 145).
14. Having regard to its case-law on the matter, the Court considers that in the present case the interferences with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly, as described in the appended table, were disproportionate to the aim pursued, and the domestic authorities overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them.
15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
remaining complaints
16. The applicants raised further additional complaints. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. Having regard to the nature of the applicants’ complaints, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage the applicants may have suffered (see, among recent authorities, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023, and the cases cited therein; see also, mutatis mutandis, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018).
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 11 of the Convention, insofar as described in the appended table, admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints;
Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of the events described in the appended table;
Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 April 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 11 of the Convention
(restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Location
Date of the public event planned
Restrictions applied
Final domestic decision (type of procedure)
Name of the court
Date
50146/20
29/10/2020
Tatyana Viktorovna GRIGORYEVA
Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich
Belgorod
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, political rally
17/08/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, political rally
27/08/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, political rally
08/09/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, rally "Free Navalnyy"
26/02/2021
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, rally in Support of Animal Rights
20/07/2020
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 21/12/2020
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 29/01/2021
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 15/03/2021
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 10/11/2021
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 29/01/2021
11334/21
04/02/2021
Andrey Sergeyevich RUBAN
Belgorod, Sobornaya Square, six political rallies
Between 06/07/2020 and
08/02/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 21/12/2020,
29/01/2021,
17/09/2021
11441/21
04/02/2021
Yuriy Ivanovich POLYAKOV
Belgorod, Sobornaya Square, political rally
17/08/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya Square, political rally
27/08/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya Square, protest against amendments to the Russian Constitution
09/07/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, rally in Support of Animal Rights
20/07/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, rally "Free Navalnyy"
26/02/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 21/12/2020
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 29/01/2021
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 21/12/2020
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 29/01/2021
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 10/11/2021
31209/21
24/05/2021
Yelena Vasilyevna SYEDINA
Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich
Belgorod
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, demonstration against restrictions on access to Belgorod water reservoir
09/11/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, Demonstration against restricted access to the Belgorod water reservoir
18/09/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya square, political rally
22/09/2020
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 27/04/2021
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22/03/2021
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 24/03/2021
31327/21
24/05/2021
Galina Grigoryevna SERIKOVA
Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich
Belgorod
Belgorod, Sobornaya Square, political rally
22/09/2020
Belgorod, Sobornaya Square, political rally
18/09/2020
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
24/03/2021
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
22/03/2021
40482/21
17/07/2021
Tatyana Yuryevna SYEDINA
Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich
Belgorod
Belgorod, Sobornaya Square, demonstration against restricted access to the Belgorod water reservoir
09/11/2020
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,
27/04/2021
54835/21
01/11/2021
Yelena Leonidovna RUSAKOVA
Rybin Aleksey Vladimirovich
Moscow
Moscow, Gagarinskiy District, protests against the building of a subway
Between 17/09/2020 and
20/09/2020
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 17/06/2021
56741/21
28/10/2021
Dmitriy Dmitriyevich MIROPOLTSEV
Novokuznetsk, rally demanding the regional governor’s resignation
04/11/2020
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,
15/06/2021
57958/21
03/11/2021
Yuriy Ivanovich POLYAKOV
Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich
Belgorod
Belgorod, Sobornaya Square, political rally
08/02/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 17/09/2021
59841/21
15/11/2021
(4 applicants)
Pavel Valeryevich ROMANOV
Mikhail Arnoldovich BUDARIN
Yelena Gennadyevna VOYEVODINA
Sergey Yuryevich ZAKHAROV
Romanov Pavel Valeryevich
Cheboksary
Cheboksary, city centre, political march
07/03/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 15/10/2021
7958/22
25/01/2022
Sergey Eduardovich PONOMAREV
Moscow, opposite the entrance to the State Duma building
15/10/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 25/10/2021
17661/22
16/03/2022
(5 applicants)
Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN
Arkadiy Yuryevich BULATOV
Mikhail Viktorovich KONDRYUKOV
Novosibirsk, several locations, several public events
Between 18/02/2021 and
23/02/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 13/05/2022
31185/22
28/05/2022
Aleksey Vladimirovich RYBIN
Moscow, Tverskaya street,
(near the Moscow City Hall)
13/04/2021 and
14/04/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 05/05/2022
36740/22
16/07/2022
Viktor Viktorovich VOROBYEV
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Syktyvkar, Stefanovskaya Square, Political rally
17/12/2020
regional ban on holding public events near the regional courts,
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 18/03/2022
39237/22
23/07/2022
Andrey Olegovich VALENKOV
Nizhniy Novgorod, Nizhne-Volzhskaya street, "Monstration-2021"
01/05/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 24/01/2022
9430/23
21/02/2023
Vladimir Vladimirovich PIROGOV
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
St Petersburg, pr. Gagarina, Rally for fair elections
17/10/2021
COVID-19-related restrictions on holding public events
notification procedure,
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 26/12/2022
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło