THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DOMOZHIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 23218/17 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 June 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Domozhirov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 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.
3. The applicant in application no. 19835/18 lodged written observations. In addition, in the same application third-party comments were received from ARTICLE 19, which had been given leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3).
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants, with exception to the two applicants in application no. 10504/18 (for further details see appended table below), complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
JURISDICTION7. 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 CONVENTION8. The applicants, save for two applicants in application no. 10504/18 (for further details see appended table below), 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.
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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”.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. 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.
14. 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); Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, § 70, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 123-38, 4 February 2020, concerning various shortcomings related to police searches at the applicants’ premises; Butkevich, cited above, §§ 129-39, concerning unjustified interference (measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies) with the applicant’s freedom of expression; 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.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS15. Some applicants raised further additional complaint under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12-14 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 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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
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 decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by 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 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 June 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]
23218/17
20/03/2017
Yevgeniy Valeryevich DOMOZHIROV
1974
Anatoliy Leonidovich GRYAZNOV
1977
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally "825 years of Vologda Park"
Vologda
01/06/2016
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO (Domozhirov)
and
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
(Gryaznov)
40 hours of community works (Domozhirov for Art. 20.2 § 8 CAO),
fine of RUB 10,000 (Gryaznov under Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO)
Vologda Regional Court
26/12/2016
3,500 to each applicant
10504/18
14/11/2017
(3 applicants)
Dmitriy Vladimirovich ZUBAREV
1987
Vladimir Ivanovich ZUBAREV
1956
Galina Ivanovna ZUBAREVA
1956
Kasilova Natalya Anatolyevna
Vladivostok
Rally against corruption (the first applicant only participated in the rally and raised complaint about it)
Vladivostok
26/03/2017
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
and
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
administrative detention of 15 days
and
fine of RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
12/05/2017
(a full copy of the judgment issued on 16/05/2017)
and
Primorye Regional Court
05/07/2017
First applicant, Mr D. Zubarev:
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention of the first applicant:
(i) on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record (article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO), and
(ii) on 20/02/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up and offence record in respect of the rally of 28/01/2018 (article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - the first and the second sets of the CAO proceedings in respect of the first applicant (final judgments of 12/05/2017 and 05/07/2017),
Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - Voters’ Strike, 28/01/2018, Vladivostok – the first applicant was present at the rally as a journalist. On 20/02/2018 an administrative-offence record under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO was compiled in respect of him. On 28/02/2018 the police discontinued the proceedings, for the lack of corpus delicti. On 27/09/2019 the applicant claimed compensation for an alleged breach of his right to liberty and freedom of expression on account of the arrest and unlawful administrative-offence proceedings. The courts awarded him RUB 3,000 (EUR 32) of compensation for unlawful arrest on 20/02/2018 and rejected the remainder of the claims. Final judgment of 07/04/2021 by the Supreme Court of Russia.
All three applicants:
Art. 8 (1) - Home - Search of the flat in which the three applicants lived on 05/05/2017 in connection with criminal investigation in respect of unidentified persons concerning an attack on a policeman during the rally of 26/03/2017- court search warrant of 04/05/2017 issued by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, upheld on appeal on 08/08/2017 by the Primorye Regional Court. Specific defects: no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation
9,750, to the first applicant;
7,500, jointly to the remaining two applicants, Ms G. Zubareva and Mr V. Zubarev
19835/18
09/04/2018
Andrey Vladimirovich RUDOY
1990
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
protest against an increase in public transport fares
Dzerzhinsk, the Nizhniy Novgorod region
26/11/2017
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative fine of RUB 20,000
the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
18/01/2018
3,500
55824/21
05/11/2021
Konstantin Sergeyevich SMIRNOV
1983
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Krasnoyarsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
7545/22
20/01/2022
Artem Nikolayevich ZAZYKIN
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
"Free Navalnyy"
Tula
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Tula Regional Court
20/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station between 2.15 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
35062/22
30/05/2022
Maksim Alekseyevich LOGINOV
1986
Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich
Samara
Anti-war protest
Tolyatti
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Samara Regional Court
01/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 24-25/02/2022,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
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
48754/22
14/09/2022
Ramiz Talyb ogly USUBOV
1994
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Anti-war protest
Novosibirsk
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
26/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 06/03/2022 between 3.40 p.m. and 9.30 p.m.,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
2270/24
31/12/2023
Tatyana Aleksandrovna GLAZOVA
1987
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
31/08/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to and detention at a police station on 13-14/03/2022.
4,000
3271/24
13/01/2024
Svetlana Edgarovna FRIK
1967
Anti-war protest
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/09/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report on 27/02/2022
4,000
10986/24
31/03/2024
Svetlana Sergeyevna NEKRASOVA
1989
Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
Anti-war rally
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
03/10/2023
(Copy of the appellate decision received at the District Court’s registry on 26/01/2024)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The police did not indicate reasons for detention such as why the offence report could not be compiled at the scene.
4,000
13613/24
25/04/2024
Kirill Nikolayevich IGAMBERDIYEV
1987
Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
Anti-war rally
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
27/10/2023
(Copy of the appellate decision received at the District Court’s registry on 28/12/2023).
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The police did not indicate reasons for detention such as why the offence report could not be compiled at the scene. Also detained in excess of 3 hours - a total of 6h20min.
4,000
14678/24
15/04/2024
Ruslan Olegovich BEZRUCHENKOV
1995
Anti-war rally
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
15/12/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The police did not indicate reasons for detention such as why the offence report could not be compiled at the scene. Also, the duration of detention exceeded three hours.
4,000
14746/24
12/04/2024
Denis Dmitriyevich SERGEYEV
1998
Anti-war rally
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
13/12/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The police did not indicate reasons for detention such as why the offence report could not be compiled at the scene. Also, the duration of detention exceeded three hours.
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.