THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ABDULLAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 35089/20 and 53755/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 April 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Abdullayev 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 9 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. 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”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained that the measures taken against them, as participants in the rally in support of the defendants in the “Bakhchisaray case” held on 11 July 2019 in Moscow, had been disproportionate. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
JURISDICTION6. 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).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants in the rally, namely their arrest in the course of its dispersal and their subsequent conviction for administrative offences. 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-19-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 interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly was not “necessary in a democratic society”.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. 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.
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).
14. The 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 10-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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 each applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022; 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, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention; 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); Holds that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; 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 30 April 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)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Administrative / criminal offence
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
35089/20
06/08/2020
(8 applicants)
Edem Rustemovich ABDULLAYEV
1958
Osman Narimanovich ABDURAZAKOV
1984
Marlen Dzhafirovich AKHAYEV
1987
Enver
Edemovich ALIYEV
1982
Rustem Asanovich DZHELYALOV
1976
Emin
Ebazerovich RUSTEMOV
1998
Ametkhan Ayderovich UMEROV
1986
Kyazim Nebiyevich USEINOV
1970
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (all applicants)
fine of RUB 20,000 (all applicants)
Moscow City Court
04/12/2019
(Mr Abdullayev)
Moscow City Court
14/11/2019
(Mr Abdurazakov)
Moscow City Court
12/11/2019
(Mr Akhayev)
Moscow City Court
06/11/2019
(Mr Aliyev)
Moscow City Court
06/12/2019
(Mr Dzhelyalov)
Moscow City Court
12/11/2019
(Mr Rustemov)
Moscow City Court
14/11/2019
(Mr Umerov)
Moscow City Court
06/11/2019
(Mr Useinov)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicants were arrested at 12.20 p.m. at the venue of the rally and escorted to the police station for drawing up administrative-offence records; they were released between 7 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. on the same day;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
53755/20
25/11/2020
Refat Shakirovich KAMILOV
1960
Izet Narimanovich SAYFULLIN
1986
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
(both applicants)
fine of RUB 20,000 (both applicants)
Moscow City Court
20/08/2020
(both applicants)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – the applicants were arrested at 12.20 p.m. at the venue of the rally and escorted to the police station for drawing up administrative-offence records; they were released between 6.30 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. on the same day;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.