THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MONAKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 75484/14 and 14 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 Monakhov 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. Domestic courts found that the applicants had staged their solo demonstrations in the vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the official residence of the President of Russia, where public events were prohibited, and convicted them under various CAO provisions. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. 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 10 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators in connection with their having breached the ban on public events in the vicinity of the Kremlin, the residence of the President of Russia. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention.
8. In the leading case Nemytov and Others v. Russia (nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, §§ 159-163, 27 May 2025), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017 and, in so far as relevant, Ibragimova v. Russia, no. 68537/13, 30 August 2022).
9. 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 on 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 expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 112-21, 31 July 2014 and Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 110/112, 4 December 2014, concerning inadequate conditions of detention in police stations; 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; 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 COMPLAINTS12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTIONDamage13. The applicants claimed compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in various amounts. The Government disputed their claims as excessive and unfounded.
14. Having regard to its case-law (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), Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 53194/16 and 34 others, 4 July 2024), Galperin and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 38377/15 and 9 others, 12 September 2024), Fayzulin and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 48841/14 and 13 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 application no. 54935/18.
15. As regards the remaining applicants, having had regard to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), as well as to awards made by the Court to some of the applicants earlier (see, for instance, Dianova and Others v. Russia, nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, § 92, 10 September 2024, and Zakharova and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award them the sums indicated in the appended table, and to dismiss the remainder of their claims for damage.
Costs and expenses16. The applicants, save for Mr Sokolovskiy in application no. 11402/20, requested the reimbursement of legal costs incurred at the national level and before the Court in various amounts. All of them requested that the awards under that head be paid into the bank accounts of their representatives. The Government considered the claims to be excessive and unfounded, noting that the applicants had not incurred any expenses.
17. 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.
Applications in which the applicants were represented by Mr N. Zboroshenko18. The applicants in applications nos. 64928/16, 71000/16, 71753/16, 71781/16, 77411/16, 4776/17, 10000/17, 31949/17, 82627/17, 54935/18, 31228/20 requested that the amounts awarded under that head be paid directly to their representative Mr N. Zborozhenko.
19. 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 applications nos. 64928/16, 71000/16, 71753/16, 71781/16, 77411/16, 4776/17, 10000/17, 31949/17, 82627/17, 54935/18 and 31228/20 jointly, 2,500 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 them. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims under this head.
Remaining applications in which the applicants claimed costs and expenses20. As concerns applications nos. 75484/14, 50917/15 and 1299/20, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and its case-law, and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications the Court considers it reasonable to award them the sums indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts. The Court dismisses the remainder of their claims under this head.
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 concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it does not need to deal separately with the applicants’ remaining complaints;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(a) that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for damage sustained by the applicants in application no. 54935/18;
(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;
Dismisses 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 10 of the Convention
(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Location
Date
Purpose of the demonstration
Administrative charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Date
Name of the court
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
75484/14
27/11/2014
Dmitriy Ivanovich MONAKHOV
1983
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
Manezhnaya Square, Moscow
12/08/2014
Protest against Russian authorities’ actions in Ukraine
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO, administrative detention of 15 days
01/09/2014
Moscow City Court
EUR 3,500 to be paid to the applicant,
EUR 500 to be paid directly to the applicant’s representative, as requested by the applicant
50917/15
08/10/2015
Aleksey Viktorovich BOСHKAREV
1991
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manezhnaya Square, Moscow
08/08/2014
Protest against President Putin
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
08/04/2015
Moscow City Court
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
EUR 3,500 to be paid to the applicant,
EUR 500 to be paid directly to the applicant’s representative, as requested by the applicant
64928/16
28/10/2016
and
71000/16
16/11/2016
and
71753/16
15/11/2016
and
71781/16
19/11/2016
and
77411/16
26/11/2016
and
4776/17
17/12/2016
and
10000/17
21/01/2017
Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV
1979
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Application no. 64928/16:
Red Square, Moscow
14/05/2016
Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia
Application no. 64928/16
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 20 days
Application no. 64928/16
18/05/2016
Moscow City Court
Application no. 64928/16
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention – inadequate conditions of detention between 1.30 p.m. on 14/05/2016 and 10 a.m. on 16/05/2016 at the Kitay-Gorod District police station of Moscow, less than 3 sq. m. of space per person, inadequate furniture (the cell was equipped with a narrow metal bench covered by a mattress), restricted access to toilet, no access to drinking water, no hot food (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 110/112, 4 December 2014 concerning the same police station, Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 112-21, 31 July 2014),
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 14/05/2016 and 16/05/2016 pending trial, as administrative suspect, after the offence record had been compiled
4,000 to be paid to the applicant,
in respect of all applications by the applicant including application no. 31949/17 (see below),
2,500 to be paid directly to the Mr N. Zboroshenko in relation to all applications in the present case where he acted as the representative
Application no. 71000/16:
(i) Aleksandrovskiy Garden, Moscow
13/03/2016
Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia
(ii) Red Square, Moscow
27/09/2016
Same purpose as above
(ii) Red Square, Moscow
05/10/2016
Same purpose as above
(iv) Red Square, Moscow
13/10/2016
Same purpose as above
Application no. 71000/16:
(i) Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000,
(ii) Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 300,000,
(iii) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 300,000,
(iv) article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 20 days
Application no. 71000/16:
(i) 24/06/2016
Moscow City Court
(ii) 04/04/2017
Moscow City Court
(iii) 04/04/2017
Moscow City Court
(iv) 18/10/2016
Moscow City Court
Application no. 71000/16:
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of pre-trial detention - between 4.30 p.m. on 13 October 2016 and 10 a.m. on 14 October 2016, Kitay-Gorod District police station of Moscow- restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food, no access to drinking water, no hot food, inadequate furniture (the cell was equipped with a narrow metal bench covered by a mattress),
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention
-on 13/03/2016, 18/03/2016, 27/09/2016, 05/10/2016, each time for the sole purpose of drawing up and offence report,
- between 14/05/2016 and 16/05/2016 pending trial, as administrative suspect, after the offence 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 - all sets of proceedings ((i)-(iv))
Application no. 71753/16:
Red Square, Moscow
10/06/2016
Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia
Application no. 71753/16:
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
administrative detention of 30 days
Application no. 71753/16:
16/06/2016
Moscow City Court
Application no. 71753/16:
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 10/06/2016 for and after compiling the offence report,
Application no. 71781/16:
Red Square, Moscow
01/04/2016
Same purpose as above
Application no. 71781/16:
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 20,000
Application no. 71781/16:
20/06/2016
Moscow City Court
Application no. 71781/16:
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 01/04/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up and offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
Application 77411/16:
Red Square, Moscow
24/03/2016
Same purpose as above
Application 77411/16:
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
Application 77411/16:
24/06/2016
Moscow City Court
Application 77411/16:
Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 24/03/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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
Application no. 4776/17:
Red Square
20/04/2016
Same purpose as above
Application no. 4776/17:
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
Application no. 4776/17:
28/06/2016
Moscow City Court
Application no. 4776/17:
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 20/04/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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
Application no. 10000/17:
Red Square, Moscow
15/04/2016
Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia
Application no. 10000/17:
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
Application no. 10000/17:
28/09/2016
Moscow City Court
Raised in application no. 10000/17:
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/04/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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
31949/17
14/01/2017
Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV
1979
Aleksandr Anatolyevich FERENETS
1971
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Red Square, Moscow
30/04/2016
(both applicants)
Protest against introduction of Art.212.1 into the Criminal Code of Russia
Mr Roslovtev was wearing a mask. He was arrested on approach to the venue.
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
(both applicants),
fine of
RUB 10,000
(Mr Ferenets),
fine of
RUB 20,000
(Mr Roslovtsev)
28/09/2016
Moscow City Court (Mr Roslovtsev)
02/09/2016
Moscow City Court (Mr Ferenets)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention of both applicants on 30/04/2016 for the sole purpose of drawing up 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 - proceedings in respect of both applicants
4,000 to Mr Ferenets
for the award in favour of Mr Roslovtsev, see no. 64928/16 above
82627/17
30/11/2017
Andrey Igorevich KISELEV
1992
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
and
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Red Square, Moscow
23/03/2017
Supprot of V. Karaulova
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
31/05/2017
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings -
4,000 to the applicant
500 to be paid to Ms I.A. Yatsenko
54935/18
10/11/2018
Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA
1949
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
Saint Basil Descent (Vasilyevskiy Spusk) Square, Moscow
25/08/2017
Reminder of the protest in Red Square by eight demonstrators against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union in 1968
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 20,000
22/05/2018
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 25/08/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
Finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
1299/20
27/12/2019
Sergey Anatolyevich ZVEREV
1963
Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna
Moscow
03/03/2019,
Red Square, Moscow,
Protest against construction of a water-bottling plant near lake Baikal
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
28/06/2019, Moscow City Court
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500 to be paid to the applicant,
500 to be paid to the applicant’s representatives as requested by the applicant
11402/20
18/02/2020
Ruslan Gennadyevich SOKOLOVSKIY
1994
Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna
Moscow
24/06/2019
Red Square, Moscow
Protest against President Putin
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
22/08/2019, Moscow City Court
3,500 to be paid to the applicant
31228/20
02/07/2020
Olga Anatolyevna NAZARENKO
1975
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
and
Eysmont Mariya Olegovna
Moscow
Red Square, Moscow
19/10/2019
Support of K. Kotov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
12/02/2020, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 19/10/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000 to be paid to the applicant,
500 to be paid to the bank account of M. Eysmont
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.