THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ANDREYEVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 33621/22 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 October 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Andreyevskaya and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 September 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
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 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. 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). It further refers to Nemytov and Others v. Russia (no. 1257/21 and 2 others, 27 May 2025) in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID-19-related restrictions to assemblies are concerned.
9. In the leading cases of Nemytov and Others (cited above), 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, 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. In particular, the Court acknowledges that wide margin of appreciation is allowed to the authorities dealing with the health crisis of COVID-19 magnitude (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 115-17 and Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain, no. 49363/20, § 81, 17 October 2024). However, at the time of relevant events, that is February ‑ March 2022, various COVID-19 related restrictions were progressively lifted.
12. The Court notes that no regime of strict lockdowns has been in force, most of COVID-19 related restrictions had been eased, and indoors and outdoors sports, cultural, entertainment and other events could have been held with minimal to no restrictions. Under these circumstances no sufficient justification has been advanced on why the applicant’s participation in anti‑war protests should have been restrictions, leisure activities allowed, even if under certain conditions. Furthermore, the judicial decision imposing sanctions on the applicants in the present cases lacked detailed and meaningful proportionality analysis, which could justify why imposition on the sanctions had been necessary. Therefore, the fines and administrative detention orders by the domestic courts had been disproportionate to the aim pursued and the domestic authorities overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them (see mutatis mutandis Nemytov and Others, §§ 128-30, cited above).
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW14. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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.
15. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols 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 Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, concerning the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS16. Some 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 10-15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION17. 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,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to 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 and the Protocols thereto as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);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 16 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
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
Name of the public event
Location
Date
Administrative / criminal offence
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
33621/22
20/06/2022
Tatyana Alekseyevna ANDREYEVSKAYA
1997
Gerasimov Dmitriy Georgiyevich
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
22/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
34590/22
30/06/2022
Gaziza Musayevna ATANOVA
1997
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
detention of 5 days
St Petersburg City Court
03/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
36248/22
08/07/2022
Zlatislava Yuryevna PANKRATOVA
1999
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention of 15 days
St Petersburg City Court
10/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 01/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
6,000
37089/22
13/07/2022
Igor Yevgenyevich KOKOSHINSKIY
1995
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
detention of 12 days
St Petersburg City Court
16/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
6,000
39230/22
28/07/2022
Polina Andreyevna BUROVSKAYA
1998
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
24/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
29/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 24/02/2022 until 25/02/2022
4,000
40313/22
28/07/2022
Darya Pavlovna MUKHINA
2000
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
29/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 27/02/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
40520/22
02/08/2022
Taisiya Vladimirovna ABDRAKHMANOVA
1996
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
05/04/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022
4,000
40524/22
04/08/2022
Fedor Stanislavovich KARPENKO
1982
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
05/04/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report
4,000
40749/22
07/08/2022
Nadezhda Alekseyevna MASLENNIKOVA
1990
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
07/04/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022
4,000
42737/22
19/08/2022
Anna Aleksandrovna VINOGRADOVA
1991
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
19/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings -
4,000
43063/22
19/08/2022
Yelena Mikhaylovna BELOUSOVA
1966
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
03/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
19/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 03/03/2022 until 04/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43099/22
18/08/2022
Anastasiya Maksimovna KATAYEVA
2001
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
25/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
21/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 25/02/2022 until 26/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43154/22
23/08/2022
Ilya Sergeyevich PETROV
1985
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
St Petersburg City Court
28/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) (b) - lawful arrest/detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43177/22
18/08/2022
Georgiy Gennadyevich MALYSHEV
1991
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
02/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
26/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 02/03/2022 until 03/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43243/22
19/08/2022
Svetlana Aleksandrovna STAVNIYCHUK
1983
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
03/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
21/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 03/03/2022 until 04/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43322/22
12/08/2022
Yekaterina Vladimirovna NIKOLAYEVA
1979
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
28/02/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
12/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 28/02/2022 until 01/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43446/22
25/08/2022
Vadim Aleksandrovich MRYASOV
1987
Ant-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
St Petersburg City Court
26/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 07/03/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
45959/22
07/09/2022
Aleksandra Vladislavovna KOZICHEVA
1996
Tkachenko Ilya Valeryevich
Kogalym
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
24/02/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
17/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 24/02/2022 until 25/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
11862/23
02/03/2023
Kirill Gennadyevich MIROSHNIK
1995
Vasilchenko Olesya Anatolyevna
Minyar
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
06/03/2022
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
10/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 06/03/2022 until 07/03/2022
4,000
25418/23
01/06/2023
Denis Valeryevich PAVLENKOVICH
1991
Vasilchenko Olesya
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
St Petersburg
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
02/02/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 27/02/2022 until 28/02/2022
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.