THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KOMAROV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 12289/20)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 April 2026

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

In the case of Komarov 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 9 April 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 15 February 2020.

2.  The applicant was represented by Ms A. Chernyavskaya, a lawyer practising in Oktyabrskiy, Novosibirsk Region.

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 alleged violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

• THE LAW
  1.         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).

2.      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

7.  The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention about the restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and under Article 11 of the Convention about his right to freedom of assembly.

8.  The Court observes that, in an earlier case it has considered an imposition of a three years’ prison sentence for participation in mass disorders in the context of a political debate to be exceptionally severe and disproportionate to the aim of the punishment of such criminal conduct, finding a violation of Article 10 of the Convention interpreted in the light of Article 11 (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, §§ 57-97, 15 May 2014).

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 complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case, although a sanction for the applicant’s actions might have been warranted by the demands of public order, the long prison sentence imposed on him was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The Court considers that the unusually severe sanction imposed in the present case must have had a chilling effect on the applicant and other persons taking part in protest actions (ibid., § 95).

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention in the light of Article 11.

3.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2.      Declares the application admissible;
3.      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 10 of the Convention in the light of Article 11 of the Convention;
4.      Holds
   1.   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;
   2.   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 30 April 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

(various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression)

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