KLOCHKOV A RYABIKOVA proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KLOCHKOV AND RYABIKOVA v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 37220/17 and 2 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 Klochkov and Ryabikova 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. The applicants were represented by Mr N. S. Zboroshenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention.

8. In the leading case Novikova and Others v. Russia (nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Ibragimova v. Russia, no. 68537/13, 30 August 2022).

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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

4. 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 the Convention in the light of its findings in 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; and 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.

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 8-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13. Each applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in connection to each of the public events and respective sets of the ensuing administrative-offence proceedings listed in the Appendix below in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government disputed the amounts claimed.

14. Having regard to its case-law (see, in particular, Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022; see further, mutatis mutandis, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023, and Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018), the nature of the applicants’ complaints, as well as to awards made by the Court to the applicants earlier (see Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 43102/15 and 24 others, 4 July 2024, Zhmyrev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 69927/17 and 12 others, 12 September 2024; and Grabetskaya and Others [Committee], nos. 13024/18 and 19 others, 16 January 2025), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.

15. The applicants further claimed various amounts in reimbursement of legal costs incurred at the national level and before the Court, to be paid directly to their representative Mr N. Zborozhenko. The Government considered the claims to be excessive and unfounded noting that the applicants had not incurred any expenses.

16. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in all cases, jointly, EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr N. Zboroshenko, as indicated by the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

17. The Court further dismisses the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction under all heads.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the complaints under Article 10 concerning disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;
5. 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);
6. Holds

(a) that that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;

(b) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr N. Zboroshenko, as indicated by the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(c) 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;

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

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 10 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)