KRIVOSHEYEV A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KRIVOSHEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 36108/20 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 Krivosheyev 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. 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 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, as described in the appended table. 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 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, 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 as described in the appended table are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

4. 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, 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 (the CAO).

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings listed in the appended table. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

15. Lastly, the Court has examined the following complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 11 raised in applications nos. 36108/20 and 49643/20:

- complaints brought by the second applicant in application no 36108/20 (Mr Akhmadaliyev), in respect of his arrest in connection with his participation in the rally of 27 July 2019 and conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO by the final judgment of 16 December 2019 of the Moscow City Court; and

- complaints brought by the applicant in case no. 49643/20 (Mr Turkin) in respect of his arrest in connection with his participation in the rally of 10 August 2019 and conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO by the final judgment of 6 February 2020 by the Moscow City Court.

16. These parts of the applications were lodged more than six months after the final decisions in respect of the applicants’ grievances under the above‑mentioned Convention provisions were taken. It must therefore ascertain whether the applicants complied with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

17. The Court further notes 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 COVID-19 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 v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022).

18. As regards the above complaints, the Court observes that neither the dates of the introduction of the relevant applications nor the dates of the expiration of the six-month time-limit fall within the above-mentioned period (16 March to 15 June 2020). The exceptional measure is therefore not applicable in the present cases (compare Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia, no. 53030/19, § 39-40, 9 May 2023; and Masse v. France (dec.), no. 47506/20, 25 March 2025) and the complaints were submitted belatedly.

19. It follows that these parts of applications nos. 36108/20 and 49643/20 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

20. 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,

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 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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Articles 6 of the Convention, and declares the remainder of applications nos. 36108/20 and 49643/20 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
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 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)

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