FOKIN proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF FOKIN v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 48955/20 and 3 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 Fokin 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 applicant’s details and the relevant details of his applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicant complained of the disproportionate measures taken against him in relation to solo demonstrations staged by him in Moscow, including in Red Square. He 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 applicant complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention.

8. In the leading cases of Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court further refers to Nemytov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, §§ 159-63, 27 May 2025 in so far as prosecution of solo demonstrators for staging their demonstrations in Red Square of Moscow is concerned.

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022), 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 applicant’s 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 applicant 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), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 51-75, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies; 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.

5. Remaining complaints

12. The applicant also raised additional complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention related to certain sets of the administrative‑ offence proceedings against him. In view of the findings in paragraphs 7-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these complaints.

13. Lastly, the Court has considered the applicant’s complaints under Articles 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 thereto concerning the applicant’s arrest, detention and prosecution in the administrative-offence proceedings in relation to the following public events:

(i) a solo demonstration of 26 December 2019, final judgment issued on 27 February 2020, the relevant application lodged on 22 October 2020;

(ii) a rally of 19 January 2020, final judgment issued on 22 January 2020, the application lodged on 22 October 2020;

(iii) a solo demonstration of 17 February 2020, final judgment issued on 20 February 2020, relevant complaints lodged on 20 November 2020.

14. The Court notes from the outset that the complaints in respect of the above events were lodged more than six months after the final decision in respect of the applicant’s grievances was taken. It must therefore ascertain whether the applicant complied with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

15. The Court observes that, as regards applications introduced in 2020, the method of calculation of the six-month rule has been adjusted in order to handle the difficulties to which the global pandemic and widespread lockdown gave rise and to preserve the essence of the right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention. In particular, the six-month rule was exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total, whenever a calendar six-month period either started to run or, on the contrary, was due to expire at any time between 16 March and 15 June 2020 (see Saakashvili (dec.), cited above §§ 46-59).

16. The Court observes that neither the date of the introduction of the above complaints nor the date of the expiration of the six-month time-limit in respect of them fall within the above-mentioned period (16 March to 15 June 2020). The exceptional measure is therefore not applicable (compare Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia, nos 53030/19, § 39-40, 9 May 2023; and Masse v. France (dec.), no. 47506/20, 25 March 2025). It follows that these complaints were lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17. Regard being had 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 applicant 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

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 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, and declares the remainder of the complaints inadmissible, in so far as they concern the applicant’s prosecution for participation in public events of 26 December 2019, 19 January and 17 February 2020;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators, as described in the appended table;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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 10 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)