THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BOGOMOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 9856/16 and 17 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 November 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bogomolov 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 23 October 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. Some of them 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 on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), the Court finds it appropriate to examine their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (see Nemytov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, § 93, 27 May 2025, with further references).
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, and Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 155-58, 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 are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. 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; 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); Glukhin v. Russia, no. 11519/20, §§ 64-91, 4 July 2023, concerning unjustified processing of the applicant’s personal biometric data by using highly intrusive facial recognition technology in the proceedings under the CAO, in order to identify, locate and arrest the applicant; and Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia, nos. 11884/22 and 161 others, §§ 111-19 and 125-27, 11 February 2025, relating to administrative conviction for public actions aimed at discrediting Russian military.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. The Court also examined the complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention made on 28 August 2020 by the applicant Ms Shatova in application no. 40597/20 concerning her arrest on 11 October 2019 for participation in series of solo demonstrations and her ensuing conviction under the CAO in the final instance on 10 February 2020 and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints were lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Masse v. France (dec.), no. 47506/20, 25 March 2025).
15. Finally, the Court observes that 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 9-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023; 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), the Court considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Mr Zakharov (application no. 18078/20). The Court further finds it reasonable to award the remaining applicants the sums indicated in the appended table (compare Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022).
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 the remainder of application no. 40597/20 related to the applicant’s participation in demonstrations and events on 11 October 2019 inadmissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention raised by some of the applicants;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(a) that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Mr Zakharov (application no. 18078/20);
(b) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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;
(c) 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 13 November 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 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]
9856/16
10/02/2016
Yuriy Aleksandrovich BOGOMOLOV
1960
Protest against construction of a church in a park
Ryazan
22/11/2014
article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Ryazan Regional Court
11/08/2015
3,500
41138/18
14/08/2018
Daniel Telmanovich KURAKIN
1990
Opposition rally
Volgograd
28/01/2018
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Volgograd
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
21/02/2018
Volgograd Regional Court
03/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention
(i) on 28/01/2018, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
(ii) on 31/01/2021 for the same purpose;
(iii) between 18/03/2022 and 19/03/2022 as administrative suspect,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - arrest, conviction under articles 20.3.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, administrative detention of 15 days, on account of the applicant’s anti-war solo demonstration held on 18/03/2022 in Volgograd; final judgment issued by the Volgograd Regional Court on 22/03/2022
5,000
14433/19
24/02/2019
Anatoliy Vyacheslavovich SHIRINKIN
1967
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Opposition rally
Perm
05/05/2018
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
compulsory community service of 40 hours
Perm Regional Court
24/08/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
10223/20
06/02/2020
and
40597/20
26/08/2020
Aglaya Aleksandrovna SHATOVA
2001
Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Raised in application no. 10223/20:
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
Raised in application no. 40597/20 (raised on 09/12/2021):
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
administrative detention of 7 days
Moscow City Court
12/08/2019
Moscow City Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 03/02/2021 and 04/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record had been compiled,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (two sets of proceedings, final judgments of 12/08/2019 and 09/06//2021)
5,000
14714/20
04/03/2020
Anastasiya Mikhaylovna GLUSHKOVA
1999
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov
Moscow
12/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Moscow City Court
04/09/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,500
18078/20
11/03/2020
Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZAKHAROV
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
16/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
31259/20
29/06/2020
Sofya Alekseyevna LIPATKINA
2001
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Event in support of political prisoners
Moscow
30/12/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
18/02/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention on 31/12/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record, in excess of three hours; failure to draw up an arrest record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2034/21
26/11/2020
Vitaliy Vladimirovich LEVCHENKO
1996
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Protest against police brutality in the wake of the murder of V.T.
Moscow
02/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/10/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 02/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record (such record only compiled on 17/06/2020),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2039/21
26/11/2020
Timur Vladislavovich AYSIN
1995
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Protest against police brutality in the wake of the murder of Mr V. T.
Moscow
02/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
22/09/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 02/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record (such record compiled on 15/06/2020 only),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
10439/21
18/01/2021
Vladilen Petrovich YURYEV
1937
Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Rally in support of S. Furgal
Vladivostok
01/08/2020
Rally in support of S. Furgal
Vladivostok
15/08/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
24/11/2020
Primorye Regional Court
16/11/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - both sets of proceedings
3,500
31691/21
12/05/2021
Nadezhda Mikhaylovna ZHUYKOVA
1965
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Support of arrested journalist I. Azar
Moscow
30/05/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Moscow City Court
26/11/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 30/05/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 10/06/2020 only),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
43486/21
08/08/2021
Nadezhda Valeryevna YEVGRAFOVA
1988
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Manifestation for transgender rights, protest against amendments into the Family Code of Russia
Moscow
18/07/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 17,000
Moscow City Court
08/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest and detention between on 18/07/2020 as an administrative suspect "for a timely and correct examination of the case" (the offence record was compiled on 22/07/2020),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
45172/21
17/08/2021
Nikita Vyacheslavovich GRISHCHENKOV
1996
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
28/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence record on 02/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
18580/22
14/03/2022
Yevgeniya Andreyevna OSTAPENKO
1994
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Event in support of political prisoners
Moscow
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
11/10/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 8 (2) - restrictions on the right to private life of participants in public assemblies - use of facial recognition technology for the identification of the applicant as a participant of a solo picketing and her subsequent conviction (raised on appeal)
4,000
45476/22
26/08/2022
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna MIROSHNICHENKO
1997
Sabirov Rim Faridovich
Kazan
Anti-war protest
Kazan
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
27/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 06/03/2022, for and after compiling an administrative offence report
4,000
46044/22
15/09/2022
Vasiliy Pavlovich SHTEFAN
1989
Mikhaylova Varvara Dmitriyevna
St Petersburg
Anti-war protest
Kazan
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fide of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
08/06/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 27/02/2022, for and after compiling an administrative offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
47704/22
18/09/2022
Larisa Vladislavovna KHUSANOVA
1973
Sabirov Rim Faridovich
Kazan
Anti-war rally
Kazan
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
18/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 13/03/2022 and 14/03/2022 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the offence record was compiled,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - arrest, conviction under article 20.3.3 of the CAO, fine of RUB 30,000 on account of the contents of an anti-war slogan (“Your comrades killed my niece the day before yesterday!”) shouted by the applicant during the rally of 13/03/2022, which authorities deemed to discredit the Russian Armed Forces; final judgment by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan of 18/05/2022
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.