ASHYROV A SKOKOV proti Rusku

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF ASHYROV AND SKOKOV v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 11890/21 and 24345/22)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 May 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ashyrov and Skokov v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Faris Vehabović, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Anne Louise Bormann, judges,

and Uğur Erdal, 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 two applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Ukrainian nationals (“the applicants”) on the dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The applicants were represented by Mr Sergiy Zayets, a lawyer practising in Irpin, Ukraine.

3. The Russian Government were given notice of the applications.

4. The Ukrainian Government made written submissions as a third party (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).

• THE FACTS

5. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

6. The applicants complained of unjustified restrictions on their right to freedom of religion and further raised additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention.

• THE LAW
  1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

7. 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

8. 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).

9. The Court further reiterates that, where domestic decisions were rendered by courts in Crimea, the Russian Federation has exercised jurisdiction over Crimea at least since 27 February 2014 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 873, 25 June 2024). Accordingly, the events the applicants complained of fall within the jurisdiction of the Russian Government and the Court has competence to examine them.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 9 OF the Convention

10. The applicants complained principally of their conviction for failure to comply with Russian legislation on unlawful missionary work, which they alleged had arisen from their legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of religion.

11. In the leading case of Ossewaarde v. Russia (no. 27227/17, 7 March 2023), the Court found that the Russian Government had failed to justify the newly introduced restrictions on missionary work.

12. As the same restrictions are at issue in the instant case, and having regard to the fact that the applicants were convicted by the “courts” in Crimea, installed by Russia within the internationally recognised sovereign territory of Ukraine, through the application of Russian legislation extended to Crimea in breach of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), cited above, § 946, and Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia, nos. 11884/22 and 161 others, § 98, 11 February 2025), the Court considers that the complaint under Article 9 is admissible and discloses a breach of that provision.

4. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13. The applicants further raised complaints under Articles 6, 10 and 14 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case and to its finding of a violation above, the Court considers that it has addressed the principal legal questions raised and that there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14. The Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant 7,500 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in respect of both applicants;
5. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;
6. Holds
   1. that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them;
   2. 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 13 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Uğur Erdal Faris Vehabović

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 9 of the Convention

(unjustified restrictions on freedom of religion)