CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 32184/21 and 11 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 Sokolov 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 of the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

6.  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).

7.  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, 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.

11.  In particular, the Court acknowledges that wide margin of appreciation is allowed to the authorities dealing with the COVID-19 health crisis (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 January-April 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 (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, § 139). However, the Court notes that the regime of strict lockdowns in the relevant regions 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 be held, albeit with some restrictions. Under these circumstances, no sufficient justification has been advanced as to why regional bans on all forms of protest were maintained, while leisure activities were allowed under certain conditions. Furthermore, the judicial decisions imposing sanctions on the applicants in the present cases lacked a meaningful proportionality analysis. 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, §§ 136-51). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.

12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

13.  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.

14.  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.

15.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-14 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

16.  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,

(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 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)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.