67894/17;14379/18;46575/18;1763/20

THIRD SECTION CASE OF NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 67894/17 and 3 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 December 2025     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Navalnyy 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 20 November 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in four 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 applicant was represented by Olga Olegovna Mikhaylova, a lawyer admitted to practise in Moscow. 3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.  The applications were lodged by Mr Aleksey Navalnyy, born in 1976, an opposition leader and anti-corruption campaigner. He died on 16 February 2024. The information relevant to the applications is set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicant complained of the disproportionate measures taken against him as an organiser or participant in various public assemblies in Russia. He also raised a number of other complaints under various provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 7.  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). Locus standi 8.  Following Mr Navalnyy’s death on 16 February 2024, his widow, Ms Yuliya Borisovna Navalnaya, expressed her wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in relation to all applications listed in the appended table. 9.  The Court reiterates that, in cases where an applicant has died during the Convention proceedings, it has had regard to statements from the applicant’s heirs or close relatives who have expressed a wish to pursue the application (see, among other authorities, Gaggl v. Austria, no. 63950/19, § 35, 8 November 2022). For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). 10.  The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may continue the proceedings before the Court, provided that he or she can demonstrate a sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death. 11.  In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case and the documents submitted by Ms Navalnaya, the Court accepts that she has a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications in the late applicant’s stead. For convenience, the present judgment will refer to Mr Navalnyy as an applicant. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  The applicant complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against him as an organiser or participant in various public assemblies, namely his arrest before the assemblies or during their dispersal, and his subsequent conviction for administrative offences. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. 13.  The Court will examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 363, 7 February 2017). 14.  The Cour 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) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009). 15.  In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, 11 October 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 16.  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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicant’s freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 17.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 18.  The applicant 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. 19.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints 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 (the CAO); and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 20.  In application no. 67894/17 the applicant raised additional complaints under Articles 6 and 18 of the Convention related to the fairness of the proceedings against him. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 21.  It follows that this part of application no. 67894/17 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 22.  In the remaining applications the applicant raised additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention concerning other aspects of his deprivation of liberty and the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of its findings in paragraphs 16-17 and 19 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 23.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022; Zavorotnykh and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 43224/17 and 23 others, 11 July 2024, and Kalinychev and Others v. Russia, [Committee], nos. 20919/18 and 10 others, 12 June 2025), the Court finds it reasonable to award the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses to be paid directly to Ms Mikhaylova. It dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. 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 that Ms Navalnaya has standing to pursue the applications in the late applicant’s stead; Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, declares the remainder of application no. 67894/17 inadmissible, 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; 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 applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)  EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be paid to the applicant’s heir, Ms Yuliya Navalnaya; (ii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that maybe chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly into the bank account of Ms Olga Mikhaylova; (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. Dismisses the reminder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 December 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 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law     67894/17 30/08/2017     Anti-corruption rally   Moscow 12/06/2017   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO         detention for 25 days         Moscow City Court 16/06/2017       Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.30 p.m. until 11.58 p.m. on 12/06/2017.             14379/18 21/02/2018         Opposition rally   Moscow 05/05/2018   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO,     article 19.3 § 1 of CAO   detention for 30 days;   detention for 15 days   Moscow City Court 23/05/2018 (both sets) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 9.50 a.m. until 8.55 p.m. on 29/09/2017;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - unauthorised rally on 29/09/2017 in Nizhniy Novgorod, Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO (repeated breach of rules on public events by calling on participation in the unauthorised rally), detention for 20 days, final decision Moscow City Court 06/10/2017.     46575/18 26/09/2018   Voters’ strike   Moscow 28/01/2018   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   detention for 30 days   Moscow City Court 05/05/2018   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (1) escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.40 p.m. until 10.40 p.m. on 28/01/2018; (2) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 22/02/2018; (3) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.50 p.m. on 25/08/2018 until 5.10 p.m. on 27/08/2018; (4) escorting to and detention at the police station from 6.20 a.m. until 2.15 p.m. on 24/09/2018;   Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally against retirement age hike on 09/09/2018 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 4 of CAO, detention for 20 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 03/10/2018.     1763/20 21/12/2019 Rally to support Ivan Golunov   Moscow 12/06/2019   article 20.2 § 8 of CAO detention for 10 days Moscow City Court 09/07/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.55 p.m. until 8.50 p.m. on 12/06/2019 (the report was compiled only on 17/06/2019).