CASE OF VELLER v. RUSSIA

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF VELLER v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 11408/20)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

26 March 2026

 

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

In the case of Veller 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 5 March 2026,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 February 2020.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr N. Zboroshenko, a lawyer practising in Neubrandenburg.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW        Jurisdiction

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 application (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 Convention

7.  The applicant complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. She relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention.

8.  In the leading cases of 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, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

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 the applicant’s complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was not “necessary in a democratic society”.

10.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

   OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  The applicant 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; and 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).

  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  Regard being had 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) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,     Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;     Declares the application admissible;     Holds that this application discloses 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 as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);     Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 

 

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

 

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]

11408/20

10/02/2020

Irma Vasilyevna VELLER

1976

 

Moscow

10/08/2019

Support of LGBT community

article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, fine of RUB 15,000

14/10/2019

Moscow City Court

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 10/08/2019 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

 

 

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

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy