CASE OF KLOCHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KLOCHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 37214/17 and 4 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 Klochkov 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 disproportionate measures imposed on them in connection with their participation in public assemblies held in the vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the official residence of the President of Russia, where public events were prohibited. 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 Mr Dadin’s death on 5 October 2024, his widow, Ms Oleksandra Sveshnikova, expressed her wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in relation to application no. 18357/18, lodged by her late husband in 2018.

8.  The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII).

9.  In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case and the documents submitted by Ms Sveshnikova, the Court accepts that she has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. For practical reasons, the Court will continue to refer Mr Ildar Dadin as the applicant in the present judgment.

10.  The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures imposed on them in connection with their participation in public assemblies held in the vicinity of the Kremlin, the official residence of the President of Russia, where public events were prohibited. Namely, they alleged that their arrest during the dispersal of those assemblies and their subsequent conviction for administrative offences had been in breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

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). It further refers to the cases 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, where the Court found violations of Article 11 in cases of arrests and convictions imposed solely because the authorities perceived the assemblies as unauthorised.

12.  In the leading case Nemytov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, §§ 159-63, 27 May 2025, the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 431-42, 7 February 2017, and Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 53-59, 30 April 2019).

13.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, including having looked at the compliance with the six-month period 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 and concluded that it should be exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total whenever it either started to run or was due to expire at any time between 16 March and 15 June 2020), 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.  The 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 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; and 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.

17.  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 effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 12-14 and 16 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

18.  Having regard to the nature of the applicants’ complaints, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 37214/17, 18357/18, and 26827/18 (see 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). Furthermore, 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 applicants in applications nos. 50140/17 and 31906/20 the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

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. 37214/17, 18357/18, and 26827/18;

(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)

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