THIRD SECTION

CASE OF VIKTOR SOROKIN v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 17836/14 and 2 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 February 2026

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

In the case of Viktor Sorokin 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 February 2026,

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 applicant was represented by Mr V. Khrapko, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk.

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

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant’s details and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6.  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

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).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION

8.  The applicant complained of the restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events. He relied on Article 11 of the Convention.

9.  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).

10.  In the leading case of 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.

11.  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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicant’s freedom of assembly were either based on legal provisions which did not meet the Convention’s “quality of law” requirements, or were not “necessary in a democratic society”.

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

4. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  The applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention. The Court does not find that these complaints require separate examination in view of its findings in paragraphs 8-12 above.

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  Having regard to the nature of the applicant’s complaints, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage the applicant may have suffered (see, among recent authorities, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023; see also, mutatis mutandis, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018).

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 under Article 11 of the Convention admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicant;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events;
5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 February 2026, 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

(restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events)