VINOGRADOVA A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF VINOGRADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 54829/12 and 9 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 Vinogradova 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 20 November 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 against solo demonstrators on account of their prosecution in the administrative‑offence proceedings for staging solo demonstrations in Stefanovskaya Square and in areas that authorities had considered to be “in the immediate vicinity of court buildings” in Syktyvkar. The applicants 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. Locus Standi in application no. 57471/12

7. In 2014 the applicant Mr Ostrovskiy (the first applicant in application no. 57471/12) died. After the applicant’s death, his daughter Yelena Aleksandrovna Ostrovskaya (born in 1993 and residing in Tel-Aviv, Israel) expressed a wish to maintain the case.

8. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). In the present case, the applicant’s daughter submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant’s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Ms Ostrovskaya has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late father.

9. The Court will therefore continue to deal with the case at her request. For convenience, however, it will continue to refer to Mr Ostrovskiy as the applicant in the present judgment.

4. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

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

11. In the leading cases of Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 431-42, 7 February 2017; and Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 50-59, 30 April 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

12. 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”.

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

5. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

14. 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 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 Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2204/11, §§ 71-79, 22 October 2015, concerning hindrance to the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual petition within the meaning of Article 34.

6. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

15. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12-14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

7. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
   1. Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage

16. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government disputed their claims.

17. 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 the awards made by the Court to the applicants earlier (see, among others, Mezak and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 20948/13 and 16 Others, 14 December 2023); Zinchenko and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 47784/18 and 21 Others, 22 February 2024); Kalinychev and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 20919/18 and 10 Others, 12 June 2025); Malov v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 9837/18 and 15 others, 16 January 2025); Zholobov and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 26521/19 and 7 Others, 18 July 2024); and Muldagaliyeva and Others v. Russia [Committee] (no. 15013/18 and 8 others, 11 July 2024)), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 59778/12, 6320/13, 65507/14, 72147/16, and 58468/17.

18. As regards the remaining applicants, having had regard to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table, and to dismiss the remainder of their claims for damage.

2. Costs and expenses

19. The applicants, save for the applicant in application no. 57471/12, made claims for costs and expenses in various amounts. They asked for the said amounts to be paid directly into the bank accounts of their representatives Mr E. Mezak and, where relevant, Mr A. Laptev. The Government considered that the applicants’ claims should be dismissed.

20. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Dianova and Others v. Russia, nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, § 95, 10 September 2024, and Shaykhtarov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 47737/10 and 4 Others, § 50, 15 January 2019), and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in applications nos. 54829/12, 59778/12, 6320/13, 65507/14, 69758/14, 70240/14, 2361/15, 72147/16 and 58468/17 jointly, 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of legal services provided by Mr E. Mezak and EUR 1,500 in respect of legal services provided by Mr A. Laptev. The said awards are to be paid directly into these representatives’ bank accounts. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims under this head.

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. Holds that Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Ostrovskaya has standing to pursue the case of Mr Ostrovskiy (application no. 57471/12) in the late applicant’s stead;
4. Declares the complaints under Article 10 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;
5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;
6. 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);
7. Holds

(a) that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 59778/12, 6320/13, 65507/14, 72147/16, and 58468/17;

(b) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos. 54829/12, 57471/12, 69758/14, 70240/14, and 2361/15, within three months, the following amounts:

(i) the amounts indicated in the appended table to the applicants Ms Sedova (application no. 54829/12) and Mr Ostrovskiy (application no. 57471/12), plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(ii) the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of the remaining applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, to the remaining applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(iii) EUR 3,500 (three thousand and five hundred euros), to the applicants in applications nos. 54829/12, 59778/12, 6320/13, 65507/14, 69758/14, 70240/14, 2361/15, 72147/16 and 58468/17 respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, which is to be paid as follows: EUR 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred euros) of that amount is to be paid directly into the bank account of Mr A. Laptev, and the remaining EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) is to be paid directly into the bank account of Mr E. Mezak;

(c) that the award in respect of Mr Aleksandr Borisovich Ostrovskiy should be paid to his heir, Ms Yelena Aleksandrovna Ostrovskaya,

(d) 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;

8. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims 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 10 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.