THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SAMOYLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 51401/21 and 20 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 Samoylenko 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. 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 in connection with their participation in various public events in breach of COVID-19-related restrictions, 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). It further refers to Nemytov and Others v. Russia (nos. 1257/21 and 2 Others, 27 May 2025) in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID-19-related restrictions to assemblies are concerned.
9. In the leading cases of Nemytov and Others (cited above), 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, 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. In particular the Court acknowledges that wide margin of appreciation is allowed to the authorities dealing with the health crisis of COVID-19 magnitude (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 115-17 and Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain, no. 49363/20, § 81, 17 October 2024). At the time of relevant events, that is April – October 2021, the virus was still actively circulating and various COVID-19 related restrictions were still in place generally pursuing a pressing social need to protect individual and public health.
12. However, the Court notes that the regime of strict lockdowns was no longer in force, several COVID-19-related restrictions had been altered or eased, indoors and outdoors sports, cultural, entertainment and other events could have been held albeit with some restrictions. Under these circumstances no sufficient justification has been advanced on why regional bans on all forms of protest were maintained, while leisure activities allowed under certain conditions. Furthermore, the judicial decision imposing sanctions on the applicants in the present cases lacked detailed and meaningful proportionality analysis, which could justify why imposition on the sanctions had been necessary. Therefore, the fines and administrative detention orders by the domestic courts had been disproportionate to the aim pursued and the domestic authorities overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them (see, mutatis mutandis, Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 128-30).
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW14. 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.
15. 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), and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, concerning the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS16. 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 9-15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION17. 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 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 it is not necessary to examine separately the remainder of the applications;Holds that these complaints 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 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 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]
51401/21
08/10/2021
Dariya Nikolayevna SAMOYLENKO
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
27/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 12.35 a.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
51782/21
06/10/2021
Nikita Andreyevich RUNDYGIN
1999
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
06/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.24 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 2.39 a.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
51883/21
23/09/2021
Aleksandra Aleksandrovna OZEROVA
1989
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
St Petersburg City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 7 p.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
51886/21
23/09/2021
Alla Pavlovna MENSHIKOVA
1997
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
25/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.00 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1.25 a.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
52576/21
13/10/2021
Oleg Lvovich KOKH
1980
Nepovinnova Yana Andreyevna
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
02/02/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
St Petersburg City Court
22/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 1.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021
5,000
53526/21
14/10/2021
Lidiya Ivanovna MELNIKOVA
2002
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
15/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021
4,000
54376/21
21/10/2021
Iliyas Kazimovich CHERKASOV
1999
Karagodina Veronika Yuryevna
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
23/01/2021
article 8-6-1 § 2 of the Law of St Petersburg on administrative offences
fine of RUB 4,000
Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg
01/07/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report
4,000
54492/21
18/10/2021
Nikolay Konstantinovich GAVRILOV
1992
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
21/04/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
16/09/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 7.45 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 5.30 a.m. on 22/04/2021
4,000
54502/21
18/10/2021
Konstantin Vladimirovich GRIGORYEV
1989
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalny"
St Petersburg
21/04/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
06/07/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.20 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 9.30 p.m. on 22/04/2021
4,000
54740/21
18/10/2021
Arseniy Denisovich DMITRIYEV
1999
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
02/02/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
22/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 11.21 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 6.30 p.m. on 03/02/2021
4,000
54767/21
25/10/2021
Rpman Yuryevich TYUTYUNNIK
1998
Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
27/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4.24 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 2.40 a.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
55131/21
15/10/2021
Aleksandra Nikolayevna MAKSIMOVA
1985
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
21/04/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
22/06/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 9.08 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 1.00 p.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
55425/21
26/10/2021
Karolina Yuryevna KELKEL
2000
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
21/04/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
detention of 5 days
St Petersburg City Court
26/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 21/04/2021 until 22/04/2021,
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.
5,000
61491/21
30/11/2021
Anastasiya Mikhaylovna ROMANOVA
1999
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
01/06/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report
4,000
61741/21
02/12/2021
Andrey Myintovich MYINT
1980
Karagodina Veronika Yuryevna
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
08/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to 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
2041/22
22/12/2021
Aleksey Antonovich ISTOMIN
2001
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
21/04/2021
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
15/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 21/04/2021 until 22/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2084/22
10/12/2021
Aleksandra Aleksandrovna KODIY
2001
Semenov Daniil Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
02/02/2021
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
10/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 02/02/2021 until 03/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2854/22
09/12/2021
Aleksey Yuryevich FEFELOV
1977
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
10/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to 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
17430/22
05/03/2022
Stanislav Yuryevich PINAYEVSKIY
1990
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
St Petersburg City Court
07/09/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
18039/22
25/03/2022
Ivan Igorevich PETROV
1992
Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2. § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
28/09/2021
3,500
20880/22
21/01/2022
Stepan Yuryevich SALPANOV
1989
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Samara
31/01/2021
article 20.2.2 § 1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Samara Regional Court
21/10/2021
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.