CASE OF SIMONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SIMONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 5568/19 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 October 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Simonov 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 25 September 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in four 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.

3.  The Government and the applicants lodged written observations.

THE FACTS

4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5.  The first applicant complained of the unlawful search. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

6.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

7.  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).

8.  The first applicant complained principally of the unlawful search. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention.

9.  In the leading cases of Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014 and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, 4 February 2020, 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 on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the search was carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards that would confine its impact to reasonable bounds.

11.  This complaint is therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

12.   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.

13.  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 Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 416-42, 7 February 2017, and Kablis v. Russia, nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, §§ 50‑59, 30 April 2019, as regards restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events; and Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, §§ 56‑57 and 64-71, 21 June 2011, as regards registration in a secret security services database and the resulting deprivation of liberty.

14.  The first applicant raised further complaints under Articles 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these complaints.

15.  The Court awards 10,000 euros (EUR) to the first applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the first applicant.

16.  The Court further considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage the second applicant may have suffered (see, among recent authorities, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023).

17.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court also considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,800 to the first applicant in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the first applicant.

18.  The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the first applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 1,800 (one thousand and eight hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to Mr Peredruk’s bank account;

(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 16 October 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 8 of the Convention

(unlawful search)