THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KOSTROMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 56957/15 and 16 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 December 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kostromina 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 20 November 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 applicants 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, Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, and Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 155-58 and, where relevant, §§ 143-63, 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, 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), and having considered the Government’s non-exhaustion objection raised in some of the cases (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”.
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 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); 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; 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 COMPLAINTS14. 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 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 and to dismiss the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications where such claims were submitted.
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 finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 6 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;
Decides to dismiss the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 December 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]
56957/15
26/10/2015
Darya Vladimirovna KOSTROMINA
1987
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Series of solo demonstrations in support of political prisoners and protest against President Putin
Moscow
06/11/2014
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
28/04/2015
EUR 3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to the representatives’ banking account, as indicated by the applicant
4954/16
31/12/2015
Anna Yakovlevna PASTUKHOVA
1952
Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich
Yekaterinburg
Event in support of N. Savchenko
Yekaterinburg
11/05/2015
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
01/07/2015
3,500
5206/16
31/12/2015
and
46329/19
22/07/2019
Sergey Arlenovich ZYKOV
1972
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
and
Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich
Yekaterinburg
Event in support of N. Savchenko
Yekaterinburg
11/05/2015
Rally against the pension reform
Yekaterinburg
09/09/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 300,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
01/07/2015
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
22/01/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention –
(i) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 11/05/2015 and 13/05/2015 for compiling an offence record and as administrative suspect, pending trial, after such record had been compiled, and
(ii) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 24/10/2018 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence and subsequently as administrative suspect, pending trial, after such 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 – first set of proceedings
7,000
16159/16
15/03/2016
Khabib Khabibovich POGOSYAN
1988
Event in support of N. Savchenko
Moscow
11/05/2015
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
18/09/2015
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
29234/20
29/06/2020
Anna Andreyevna BULBASOVA
2000
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Picket in support of political prisoners
Moscow
31/12/2019
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Moscow City Court
12/03/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 31/12/2019, in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record complied on 13/01/2020 only),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,500
32045/20
15/06/2020
Anastasiya Dmitriyevna REZYUK
2000
Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich
St Petersburg
Support of the LGBT community of the Chechen Republic
Moscow
11/10/2019
Support of Yu. Tsvetkova
Moscow
27/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
administrative detention of 15 days
Moscow City Court
02/12/2019
Moscow City Court
01/07/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention –
(i) arrest, delayed escorting to a police station, detention on 11/10/2019, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; and
(ii) arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 27/06/2020 and 29/06/2020 as administrative suspect,
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
5,000
45224/20
19/09/2020
Denis Dmitriyevich MISHCHENKO
2000
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Series of solo demonstrations in support of I. Azar
Moscow
28/05/2020
Series of solo demonstrations to protest against police brutality
Moscow
02/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 800
Moscow City Court
12/10/2020
Moscow City Court
28/07/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention
(i) on 28/05/2020, in excess of three hours, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; and
(ii) between 02/06/2020 and 03/06/2020, as administrative suspect,
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
4,000
51403/20
03/11/2020
Nadejda Dmitriyevna SHCHETININA
1995
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Series of solo demonstrations to protest against police brutality
Moscow
02/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
21/09/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention there on 02/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 10/06/2020),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2680/21
11/12/2020
Yevgeniy Igorevich SVAROVSKIY
1971
Series of solo demonstrations against constitutional amendments
Moscow
29/05/2020
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 200,000
Moscow City Court
28/08/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,500
12145/21
25/02/2021
Ilya Georgiyevich SHABLINSKIY
1962
Maltsev Aleksandr Anatolyevich
Moscow
Series of solo demonstrations to support V. Vorontsov
Moscow
30/05/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
24/09/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
16032/21
05/03/2021
Yegor Olegovich ZAKHAROV
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Series of solo demonstrations in support of arrested journalist I. Azar
Moscow
28/05/2020
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 150,000
Moscow City Court
16/09/2020
Moscow City Court
16/09/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention:
(i) on 28/05/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence; and
(ii) between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect,
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
5,500
18903/21
17/03/2021
Artem Nikolayevich SELEKHOV
2002
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Series of solo demonstrations to protest against abusive criminal prosecution
Moscow
22/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
10/12/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to, and detention at the police station between on 22/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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
4,000
22643/21
09/04/2021
Anna Andreyevna SHCHETNIKOVA
1999
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Series of solo demonstrations in support of activist Yu. Tsvetkova
Moscow
27/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
10/11/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/06/2020 in excess of three hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled on 14/07/2020 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
23988/21
13/04/2021
Sergey Sergeyevich TSUKASOV
1968
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Series of solo demonstrations in support of I. Azar
Moscow
29/05/2020
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
Meeting with MPs
Moscow
20/09/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
administrative detention of 5 days
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
14/10/2020
Moscow City Court
24/03/2021
Moscow City Court
29/09/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention:
(i) on 29/05/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record only compiled on 03/07/2020); and
(ii) on 19/03/2021, for compiling an offence record in connection with the event of 31/01/2021 and pending trial, for 6 hours,
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 proceedings, final judgments of 14/10/2020 and 24/03/2021, Moscow City Court),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant (i) on19/03/2021 (second set of proceedings concerning the rally of 31/01/2021) and
(ii) on 27/09/2021 (third set of proceedings concerning the event of 20/09/2021) was on each of the two occasions executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
6,000
25802/21
29/04/2021
Aleksandra Aleksandrovna KALISTRATOVA
1990
Eysmont Mariya Olegovna
Moscow
Series of solo demonstrations in support of I. Azar
Moscow
01/06/2020
Series of solo demonstrations in support of I. Azar
Moscow
05/06/2020
Rally against constitutional amendments
Moscow
15/07/2020
Anti-war rally
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 250,000
fine of RUB 250,000
fine of RUB 150,000
administrative detention of 15 days
Moscow City Court
30/10/2020
Moscow City Court
30/10/2020
Moscow City Court
01/02/2022
Moscow City Court
27/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention
(i) on 01/06/2020 and
(ii) 05/06/2020, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; (iii) between 26/01/2021 and 27/01/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial and after the record of administrative offence under article 20.2-2 of CAO had been compiled;
(iv) on 15/07/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record was only compiled on 20/07/2020);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - four sets of proceedings, final judgments of: 30/10/2019 (two judgments), 03/02/2022 and 01/02/2022,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - arrest, conviction under article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, administrative detention of 10 days for publishing on 22/01/2021 a call for participation in a rally in support of A. Navalnyy (scheduled for 23/01/2021) to the applicant’s Instagram account, final judgment of 03/02/2021 by the Moscow City Court (see Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019),
11,500
24178/22
09/02/2022
Aleksandr Anatolyevich KRAYEV
1981
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Protest against security services’ brutality
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
11/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.