79964/17;45563/18;14576/20;3941/21;13570/21;40296/22

THIRD SECTION CASE OF MELETIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 79964/17 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 January 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Meletin 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 18 December 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, Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, and, in so far as relevant, Nemytov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, 27 May 2025) 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, 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-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 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, 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 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 Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.  The Court further notes that the applicants in application no. 79964/17 raised complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding the conditions of their detention in various police stations pending trial and, subsequently, in a detention centre. They also complained about the conditions during transfers to and within the domestic courts between 7 and 14 November 2017. The Government submitted additional information about the new Compensation Act and asked to treat it as a new remedy in respect of conditions of detention complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (compare Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020). The applicants replied that on 24 June 2020 they lodged a claim for compensation under the Compensation Act in respect of the conditions of their detention during the impugned period with a domestic court. Since that date, they have not provided any update or any additional information on their complaint. In these circumstances, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15.  Finally, some applicants also raised additional complaints under various Convention provisions. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.  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 remaining complaints under the Convention; Holds that these complaints 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 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 22 January 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 (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 pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     79964/17 17/11/2017 (4 applicants) Vadim Viktorovich MELETIN   Aleksandr Maksimovich RYABUSHKIN   Maksim Vyacheslavovich SHATROVSKIY   Yevgeniy Ivanovich SOBOLEV   Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow Anti-corruption rally   Moscow   05/11/2017 Article 20.1 § 1 of CAO (Mr Meletin),   Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, (three other applicants) administrative detention of 15 days (each applicant) Moscow City Court 14/11/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 05/11/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence report (all applicants),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - all applicants 5,000, to each of the applicants     45563/18 12/09/2018 Aleksandr Vladimirovich PARAMONOV   Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich Novocheboksarsk Rally in support of A. Navalnyy   Cheboksary   28/01/2018 Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 13/03/2018 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - three counts of conviction in administrative-offence proceedings for staging three solo demonstrations, as a part of electoral campaign of an opposition candidate, using an unspecified (de) assembled construction in Cheboksary on 22/08/2020, 23/08/2020, 28/08/2020; each time the applicant was convicted under article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced to a fine of RUB 10,000; final judgments issued on 20/10/2020, 05/11/2020 and 05/11/2020 by the Supreme Court of Chuvashia 5,000     14576/20 06/03/2020   and   3941/21 11/12/2020 Ilya Vilyamovich AZAR   Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod   and   Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich Moscow Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   27/07/2019     Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma   Moscow   31/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO                 article 20.2 § 8 of CAO   fine of RUB 10,000                 fine of RUB 300,000 Moscow City Court 06/09/2019               Moscow City Court 18/03/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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 (both sets of proceedings) 3,400     13570/21 25/02/2021 Yelena Yevgenyevna FILINA   Chervonnyy Grigoriy Sergeyevich Moscow Support of journalist I. Azar   Moscow   29/05/2020 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court 28/08/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 27/05/2020 and 29/05/2020, each time 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 - both sets of proceedings 4,000     40296/22 28/07/2022 Ruslan Raufovich KUNAKBAYEV   Baranova Natalya Andreyevna Moscow Protest against fraudulent elections   Moscow   13/11/2021 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court 29/03/2022 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention in the police station on 13/11/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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 4,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.