CASE OF KALMYKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KALMYKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 56516/15 and 7 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 Kalmykova 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. The applicants were represented by Mr N.S. Zboroshenko, lawyer practicing in Moscow. The applicants in case no. 56516/15 were also represented by Mr O.D. Beznisko, now deceased.

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

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

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).

7.  Following the death of the applicant, Mr Dadin, his widow, Ms Oleksandra Oleksandrivna Sveshnikova, expressed her wish to pursue the application on behalf of the deceased applicant (see the appended table).

8.  The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). In the present case, the applicant’s widow submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant’s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Ms Sveshnikova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband.

9.  The Court will therefore continue to deal with the case at her request. For convenience, however, it will continue to refer to Mr Dadin as the applicant in the present judgment.

10.  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 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 decides that it is appropriate to deal with the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (see Nemytov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, § 93, 27 May 2025).

11.  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).

12.  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 (see also, in so far as solo demonstrations staged in turn by several participants are concerned, Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 156-58).

13.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having rejected the Government’s non-exhaustion objection (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, § 42, 30 April 2019), 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”.

14.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

15.  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.

16.  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 Navalnyy and Yashin, cited above, §§ 111-12, in so far as conditions of detention in police stations are concerned; 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 Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106-225, 26 April 2016, relating to disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations.

17.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-16 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

18.  The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government disputed their claims.

19.  Having regard to its case-law (see (see, in particular, 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; see further, mutatis mutandis, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023, and Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018), the nature of the applicants’ complaints, as well as the awards made by the Court to the applicants earlier (see, among others, Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 43102/15 and 24 others, 4 July 2024, Zhmyrev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 69927/17 and 12 others, 12 September 2024; Fayzulin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 48841/14 and 13 others,12 September 2024; Dianova and Others v. Russia, nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, § 92, 10 September 2024 Grabetskaya and Others [Committee], nos. 13024/18 and 19 others, 16 January 2025;, or Galperin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 38377/15 and 9 others, 12 September 2024), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 56516/15 (with exception of Ms Koroleva, see below), 79503/17, 83510/17, 83526/17 and 40428/18.

20.  Further, 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 in respect of non-pecuniary damage in applications nos. 56516/15 (only to Ms Koroleva), 8793/17, 9576/17 and 20017/17.

21.  All the applicants except for Ms Ilyushnikova (application no. 20017/17) requested the reimbursement of legal costs incurred at the national level and before the Court in various amounts, to be paid directly to Mr N. Zborozhenko. The Government considered the claims to be excessive and unfounded, noting that the applicants had not incurred any expenses.

22.  According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and its case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Dianova and Others v. Russia, nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, § 95, 10 September 2024), and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in cases nos. 56516/15, 8793/17, 9576/17, 79503/17, 83510/17, 83526/17 and 40428/18 jointly, 3,000 euros (EUR), to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr N. Zboroshenko, as indicated by the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

23.  The Court further decides to dismiss the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction under all heads.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 56516/15 (with exception of Ms Koroleva), 79503/17, 83510/17, 83526/17 and 40428/18;

(b)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non‑pecuniary damage in applications nos. 56516/15 (exclusively to Ms Koroleva), 8793/17, 9576/17 and 20017/17;

(ii)  EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to all applicants in cases nos. 56516/15, 8793/17, 9576/17, 79503/17, 83510/17, 83526/17 and 40428/18 jointly, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr N. Zboroshenko, as indicated by the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants;

(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)

Heir in application no. 79503/17

Decedent

Heir

Ildar Ildusovich DADIN

Deceased

Oleksandra Oleksandrivna Sveshnikova

Born in 1988

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