THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PETROSYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 48320/19 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 September 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Petrosyan and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 August 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).
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 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 Article 6 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 CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5809/17 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, Nemytov and Others, cited above), the Court considers 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 facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 10 concerning 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 decides that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints of the applicants;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 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 18 September 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 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]
48320/19
26/08/2019
Gayane Aregovna PETROSYAN
1975
Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Red Square (according to the official records) or Voskresentskiye Gate (according to the applicant), Moscow,
15/09/2018
Ssupport of O. Sentsov
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
26/02/2019, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 15/09/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence: no evidence/ assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record and to achieve the goals set out in the CAO,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
41307/20
28/08/2020
Tatyana Aleksandrovna CHERNOVA
1964
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Kremlevskaya Embankment, Moscow
07/12/2019
Support of political prisoners
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
28/02/2020, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 07/12/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an 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
43813/20
10/09/2020
Yuliya Yevgenyevna PAVLIKOVA
1974
Yelanchik Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Kremlevskaya Embankment, Moscow
07/12/2019
Support of political prisoners
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10б,000
10/03/2020, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and detention on 07/12/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of an 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
10718/21
08/02/2021
Kristina Igorevna DUBININA
1995
Solovyev Leonid Alekseyevich
Moscow
Manezhnaya square, Moscow
14/07/2020
Art photo session
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
20/10/2020, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 14/07/2020 for the sole purpose of compiling 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
16046/21
05/03/2021
Ibragim Abukarovich BARAKHOYEV
1963
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Red Square, Moscow
11/05/2020
Drawing attention to the applicant’s poor social and economic situation
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
18/01/2021,
Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 11/05/2020 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.
4,000
18542/21
17/03/2021
Lenar Irekovich YUSUPOV
1981
Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich
Podolsk
Red Square, Moscow
15/08/2020
Protest against premature authorisation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Russia
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
04/12/2020, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to the police station, detention on 15/08/2020 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.
4,000
23442/21
10/04/2021
Daniil Alekseyevich GALITSKIY
2001
Rossius Aleksandra Andreyevna
Moscow
Red Square, Moscow
21/12/2019
Holding a placard with a smiley (as a "social experiment")
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO,
fine of RUB 75,000
14/10/2020, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 21/12/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing 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.
4,800
49949/21
17/09/2021
Anatoliy Aleksandrovich CHISTOV
1991
Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Red Square, Moscow
18/11/2020
Protest ("performance") against cancellation of New Year celebrations
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
22/03/2021, 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
53251/21
17/09/2021
Kirill Sergeyevich NASONOV
1980
Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Red Square, Moscow
09/03/2021
Protest against living conditions in Russia
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
05/07/2021, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 09/03/2021 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.
4,000
22067/22
15/04/2022
Igor Gennadyevich TATAROV
1990
Red Square, Moscow
28/06/2021
Protest against President Putin
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
15/10/2021, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to the police station, detention on 28/06/2021 for the sole purpose of 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
34705/22
11/07/2022
Viktor Aleksandrovich NEMYTOV
1982
Bochilo Anna Yevgenyevna
Barnaul
Red Square, Moscow
29/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO, administrative detention of 25 days
06/04/2022, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 29/03/2022 until 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,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO.
3,000
47140/22
12/09/2022
Vyacheslav Vasilyevich ILNITSKIY
1972
Aleksandrovskiy Garden, Moscow
24/02/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 15,000
01/07/2022, Moscow City Court
3,500
52477/22
31/10/2022
Andrey Vasilyevich VLASYUK
1974
Baranova Natalya Andreyevna
Moscow
Manezhnaya Square, Moscow
01/03/2022
Anti-war protest
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO,
fine of RUB 10,000
01/07/2022, Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, taking to a police station, detention on 01/03/2022 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.