THIRD SECTION

CASE OF VOYEVODINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 27202/21 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 Voyevodina 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 against solo demonstrators. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

2. 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 applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants or organisers of solo demonstrations, notably the termination of their demonstrations, arrest and conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention taking into account, where appropriate, the general principles it has established in the context of Article 11 of the Convention (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, § 91, 26 April 2016).

8.  In the leading case of Novikova and Others (cited above, §§ 112-225) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court further refers to Nemytov and Others v. Russia (no. 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 and solo protestors is concerned.

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 as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints.

10.  In particular, the Court acknowledges that wide margin of appreciation was allowed to the authorities dealing with the COVID-19 health crisis at the time of the events (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, 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).

11.  However, by the time of relevant events, that is from November 2020 to March 2022 (see the appended table), various COVID-19-related restrictions had been progressively lifted in the relevant Russian regions. The Court notes that the regime of strict lockdowns in those regions was no longer in force, several COVID-19-related restrictions had been altered or eased, and that 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 and any forms of protest  including, as in the present cases, solo demonstrations  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, §§ 128-30 and 136‑151). 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”.

12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

4. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

13.  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. 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; Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018, regarding conviction for insulting police officers; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 51-75, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07,§§ 84-97, 3 October 2013, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of 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.

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14.  Some applicants raised further additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table, and to dismiss the remainder of the just satisfaction claims in application no. 56861/21, where such claims were requested by the Court and submitted by the applicant.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators and the other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the appended table), admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine the remainder of the applications;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. 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;

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction in application no. 56861/21.

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 10 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators)

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