7715/15;74343/17;9483/20;26917/20;28586/24;34187/24

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SOROKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 7715/15 and 5 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 Sorokin 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.  The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. 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 11 OF THE CONVENTION 7.  The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. 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) 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). 9.  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 and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.  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 applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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. 13.  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols 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   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); 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; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7 February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events; 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 14.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings and effective remedies. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10 and 13 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, and Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, §§ 71-72, 21 November 2023). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.  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), the Court finds 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 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, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remainder of the applications; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto 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 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 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well‑established case-law Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     7715/15 12/01/2015 Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN   Shirnina Yelena Nikolayevna Novosibirsk Manifestation promoting respect for law, civic engagement and opposition to corruption   Novosibirsk 05/03/2014   Anti-corruption manifestation   Novosibirsk 29/08/2014 article 20.2 § 1 of CAO             article 20.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000             fine of RUB 500 Novosibirsk Regional Court 16/09/2014           Novosibirsk Regional Court 11/11/2014   3,500     74343/17 06/10/2017 Dmitriy Viktorovich VALKOVICH   Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sochi Rally against corruption   Krasnodar   26/03/2017 article 20.2 § 2 of CAO 10 days’ administrative detention Krasnodar Regional Court 06/04/2017 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Krasnodar Regional Court, 06/04/2017,   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - the Krasnodar Town Administration’s refusal to approve the location of the rally against corruption of 26/03/2017; final decision: Krasnodar Regional Court, 22/06/2017,   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 5,000     9483/20 01/02/2020 Yuliya Yevgenyevna GALYAMINA   Morozova Natalya Yuryevna Moscow Land Congress Novgorod 22/05/2021   Meeting with potential voters Moscow 14/07/2019   Meeting with potential voters Moscow 17/07/2019   Rally against the ineligibility of candidates for the elections Moscow 27/07/2019   Manifestation against amendments to Constitution Moscow 15/07/2020   Land Congress Novgorod 22/05/2021   Meeting in support of A. Navalnyy Moscow 23/01/2021   Meeting with potential voters Moscow 15/07/2019 article 19.3 § 1 of CAO     article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO         article 212.1 of CC         article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO       article 20.2 § 5 of CAO 7 days’ administrative arrest   fines of RUB 1,000 and 30,000     fine of RUB 20,000       15 days of detention         imprisonment of 2 years (suspended)       fine of RUB 10,000     fine of RUB 15,000       fine of RUB 20,000 Novgorod Regional Court 26/05/2021   Moscow City Court 10/09/2019     Moscow City Court 20/02/2020     Moscow City Court 08/08/2019       Second Cassation Court 09/12/2021       Novgorod Regional Court 24/06/2021   Moscow City Court 19/08/2021     Moscow City Court 20/02/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis:   Administrative arrest and detention from 8.30 p.m. on 14/07/2019 to 2.40 a.m. on 15/07/2019, from noon on 21/08/2019 to 22/08/2019:   Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period - the issue was raised in the course of administrative proceedings against the applicant on the charges of article 19.3 of CAO; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/09/2019; the complaint was introduced on 08/02/2020;   Administrative arrest and detention on 22/05/2021 - applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to establish the suspect’s identity (raised in the administrative proceedings),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in several sets of the administrative offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 01/08/2019, 08/08/2019, 27/08/2019, 10/09/2019, 20/02/2020, 19/08/2021, Novgorod Regional Court, 26/05/2021 and 24/06/2021,   Art. 10 (1) - Freedom of expression: The applicant was found guilty of an administrative offence (article 20.2 § 2 of CAO) and sentenced to 10 days’ detention for publishing calls to take part in a manifestation on 27/07/2019; final decision: Moscow City Court, 01/08/2019;   The applicant was found guilty of an administrative offence (article 20.2 § 2 of CAO) and sentenced to a fine of RUB 30,000 for publishing calls to potential voters to meet her as a candidate for elections to the Moscow City Duma on 14/07/2019; final decision: Moscow City Court, 10/09/2019;   The applicant was found guilty of an administrative offence (article 20.2 § 2 of CAO) and sentenced to a 10 days’ administrative detention for publishing calls to take part in a manifestation in the centre of Moscow on 03/08/2019; final decision: Moscow City Court, 27/08/2019,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the trial court on 24/05/2021 was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO; final decision: Novgorod Regional Court, 26/05/2021 5,000     26917/20 29/05/2020 Andrey Vladimirovich BOROVIKOV       Manifestation against waste dump   Shies, Arkhangelsk Region   07/04/2019 article 212 § 1 of CC 400 hours of compulsory work Arkhangelsk Regional Court 29/11/2019   5,000     28586/24 15/09/2024 Yuriy Dmitriyevich YULIN       Anti-war rally   Moscow   27/02/2022 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court 15/05/2024 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - escorting to the police station on 27/02/2022; no explanation why it was impossible to draw the offence record at the scene; raised on appeal 4,000     34187/24 05/08/2022 Mariya Aleksandrovna KONOSOVA       Anti-war rally   St Petersburg   27/02/2022 article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO fine of RUB 10,000 St Petersburg City Court 05/04/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - escorted to the police station on 27/02/2022 for reasons unknown and held there for twenty hours, raised on appeal,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: St Petersburg City Court, 05/04/2022 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.