THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KALINYCHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 20919/18 and 10 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 Kalinychev 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.
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).
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 regard to the requirement of compliance with the six-month time-limit in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention – including the exceptional three-month grace period applicable only where that time-limit began or expired between 16 March and 15 June 2020 (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022) – the Court finds no fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility or merits of the present 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. The 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.
13. 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); 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; 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 demonstrations; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia, nos. 11884/22 and 161 others, §§ 93-126, 11 February 2025 relating to administrative conviction for discreditation of the use of the Russian Armed Forces in the context of anti-war protest actions; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 402-78, 7 February 2017, regarding restrictions on location or time of public events; 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; Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62-65 as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings and the lack of domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case and its findings in paragraphs 10 and 13 above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicants and there is no need to examine these remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, §§ 71-72, 21 November 2023).
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 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 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 under Articles 6 and 13 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 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]
20919/18
06/04/2018
Dmitriy Vladimirovich KALINYCHEV
1980
Political rally
Nizhniy Novgorod
29/09/2017
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
21/04/2021
Political rally
Nizhniy Novgorod
13/02/2022
Protest against the war in Ukraine
Nizhniy Novgorod
23/02/2022
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO;
and
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 12 days;
and
fine of RUB 20,000
fine of RUB 10,000
detention for 7 days
detention for 14 days
detention for 14 days
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 06/10/2017;
24/01/2018
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
12/05/2021
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
17/03/2022
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
30/03/2022
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
17/03/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021, 21/04/2021, 08/05/2022; (2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.15 p.m. on 23/02/2022 until 4 p.m. on 24/02/2022;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative proceedings, including the proceedings under Art. 19.3 (1) of CAO (final decision taken on 20/07/2022 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court);
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 person who had staged a solo demonstration with the anti-war banner and his subsequent conviction under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO (final decision taken by Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 12/01/2023);
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - (1) solo demonstration on 01/06/2018, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, 50 hours of community work, final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 10/10/2018 (introduction of the application form with the Court on 08/04/2019);
(2) solo demonstration on 03/06/2018, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, 70 hours of community work, final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 10/10/2018 (date of introduction of the application form - 08/04/2019);
(3) solo demonstration on 18/06/2018, conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, detention for 25 days, final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 29/06/2018 (date of introduction of the application form - 26/12/2018);
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - (1) on 07/06/2022 the applicant was convicted under article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO (discrediting Russian Armed Forces by distributing leaflets "Free Mariupol" on 08/05/2022), fined RUB 40,000, final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 24/08/2022;
(2) on 28/06/2022 the applicant was convicted under article 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO (discrediting Russian Armed Forces by staging a solo demonstration with a banner against the war in Ukraine on 02/04/2022), fined RUB 30,000, final decision taken by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 12/01/2023.
8,000
35410/18
12/07/2018
Leonid Mikhaylovich VOLKOV
1980
Voters’ strike
Moscow
28/01/2018
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 30 days
Moscow City Court
28/02/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (1) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 22/02/2018; (2) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.10 a.m. on 21/05/2019 until 2 p.m. on 22/05/2019;
(3) escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6.10 a.m. until 10.15 a.m. on 10/06/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - (1) rally against retirement age hike on 09/09/2018 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 4 of CAO, detention for 20 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 29/05/2019;
(2) rally against retirement age hike on 09/09/2018 in St Petersburg, Article 20.2 § 3 of CAO, detention for 15 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 17/06/2019.
6,000
9008/20
08/02/2020
Konstantinas Stasisovich YANKAUSKAS
1986
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
14/07/2019
Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
15/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
detention for 7 days
Moscow City Court
24/10/2019
Moscow City Court
02/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (1) escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 until 11.30 a.m. on 29/07/2019; from 4.30 p.m. on 03/08/2019 until 05/08/2019 when the applicant was taken to the court; from 5.22 p.m. on 13/08/2019 until 14/08/2019 when the applicant was taken to the court;
(2) escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 22/08/2019;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - (1) rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 14/07/2019 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision Moscow City Court 07/08/2019;
(2) rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma on 03/08/2019 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 2 of CAO, detention for 9 days, final decision Moscow City Court 21/08/2019.
6,000, jointly in connection to applications nos. 9008/20 and 17130/21
21357/20
28/04/2020
Andrey Sergeyevich RUBAN
1985
Sokolov Yevgeniy Vladislavovich
Belgorod
Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Belgorod
17/08/2019
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Belgorod
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community work
fine of RUB 10,000
Belgorod Regional Court
02/03/2020
Belgorod Regional Court
12/04/2021
Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - refusal to approve a political rally planned on 05/11/2019 in Belgorod, proposal to change a location (final decision taken on 06/04/2020 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation).
4,000
1413/21
18/12/2020
Nadezhda Sergeyevna SHTEYUK
1963
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Protest against a new city plan
Vylgort, Syktyvkar district
24/11/2019
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
18/03/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
17130/21
24/03/2021
Konstantinas Stasisovich YANKAUSKAS
1986
Morozova Natalya Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
18/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
24/09/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1 p.m. until 7 p.m. on 29/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - rally in support A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 in Moscow, Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, detention for 10 days, final decision taken by the Moscow City Court on 12/03/2021;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
-
(see application no. 9008/20
above)
44709/21
12/08/2021
Maksim Andreyevich SUPRUN
1990
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Cheboksary
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic
05/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and both sets of proceedings under 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO;
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - (1) on 10/06/2022 the applicant was found guilty of reposting a video in Telegram about army supply problems under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO, fined RUB 35,000, final decision taken on 23/08/2022 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic; (2) on 23/06/2022 the applicant was found guilty of posting a video alleging looting by the Russian armed forces in Ukraine under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO, fined RUB 30,000, final decision taken on 27/07/2022 by the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic.
4,500
55096/21
18/10/2021
Semen Alekseyevich TERESHONKOV
1982
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Syktyvkar
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
19/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO;
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - (1) on 01/06/2022 the applicant was found guilty of posting a text discrediting Russian military forces in VKontakte social network under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO; fined RUB 30,000, final decision taken on 21/09/2022 by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic;
(2) on 10/08/2022 the applicant was found guilty of posting a drawing discrediting Russian military forces in VKontakte social network under Article 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO; fined RUB 30,000, final decision taken on 28/09/2022 by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic.
4,500
58288/21
27/11/2021
Danil Andreyevich GLUSHCHENKO
1998
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Krasnodar
21/04/2021
Protest against the war in Ukraine
Krasnodar
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
detention for 15 days
Krasnodar Regional Court
28/06/2021
Krasnodar Regional Court
30/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 16/03/2022 the applicant was found guilty of participating in the protest against the war in Ukraine on 06/03/2022 in Krasnodar under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO, fined RUB 30,000, final decision taken on 27/04/2022 by the Krasnodar Regional Court;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in the proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
5,000
33210/22
06/06/2022
Viktor Vladimirovich KAZAKOV
1954
Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Protest against the war in Ukraine
Novouralsk
31/03/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
detention for 9 days
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
28/04/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 10/04/2022 until 11/04/2022, when the applicant was taken to the court;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings in connection with events of 27/02/2022; 31/03/2022; 19/04/2022; 13/05/2022;
Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - solo demonstration against the war in Ukraine on 27/02/2022, conviction under Article 20.6.1 § 1 of CAO, fine of RUB 10,000, final decision taken by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 07/09/2022;
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – the applicant was found guilty under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO for public actions aimed at discrediting the use of Russian Armed Forces on multiple occasions:
1) publishing an anti-war article online on 19/04/2022 / fine of RUB 30,000 / Sverdlovsk Regional Court 27/07/2022;
2) publishing an anti-war article online on 13/05/2022 / fine of RUB 30,000 / Sverdlovsk Regional Court / 30/06/2022;
3) publishing an anti-war poem online on 31/05/2022 / fine of RUB 40,000 / Sverdlovsk Regional Court / 21/12/2022;
4) posting a picture of a car with the signs "Z" and "V" online and calling them swastikas on 03/06/2022 / fine of RUB 40,000 / Sverdlovsk Regional Court / 02/11/2022;
5) posting online a link to the materials against the war in Ukraine on 11/06/2022 / fine of RUB 40,000 / Sverdlovsk Regional Court 02/11/2022;
6) posting online a link to the materials on civil casualties in Ukraine on 21/06/2022 / fine of RUB 40,000 / Sverdlovsk Regional Court 16/11/2022;
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant in the proceedings under article 20.2 § 2 of CAO was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
8,000
47784/22
23/09/2022
Olga Ivanovna ALASHEYEVA
1959
Lapuzin Aleksey Sergeyevich
Samara
Protest against the war in Ukraine
Samara
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Samara Regional Court
26/05/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 06/03/2022 for compiling an offence report;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 29/03/2022 the applicant was found guilty of participating in the protest against the war in Ukraine and shouting slogans "no to war" on 06/03/2022 in Samara under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO, fined RUB 30,000, final decision taken on 26/07/2022 by the Samara Regional Court;
Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - overlap of the facts constituting the basis for the applicant’s prosecution in the second set of proceedings (Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of CAO) with substantially the same facts underlying her conviction in the first set of proceedings
(Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO).
4,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.