I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KREPKIN v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-06-12
- Communication date: 2024-11-07
- Application number(s): 26009/18;14154/20;18392/20;34249/20;35664/20;50241/22
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 11, 11-2
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)
Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial
Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities
Adequate time) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.926259
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
Published on 2 December 2024 (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 7 November 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised.
This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 11 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see 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).
APPENDIX – List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No.
Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law 26009/18* 22/05/2018 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KREPKIN 1984 Ilnur Ilgizovich Sharapov Moscow Opposition rally Moscow 26/03/2017 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years of imprisonment Moscow City Court 26/03/2018 Art.
6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos.
2653/13 and 60980/14, § 182, 4 October 2016) 14154/20 05/03/2020 Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich KOVALENKO 1971 Ilnur Ilgizovich Sharapov Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma Moscow 27/07/2019 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 17/10/2019 Art.
6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence - the motion of the defence to adjourn the hearing for several days after the examination of evidence was dismissed, the applicant and his lawyer were given 20 min.
to prepare their pleadings (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos.
2653/13 and 60980/14, § 152, 4 October 2016); Art.
6 (3) (c) - inability to have confidential consultations with a lawyer during the trial, because of a glass compartment (ibid, § 153) 18392/20* 26/03/2020 Kirill Sergeyevich ZHUKOV 1990 Svetlana Nikolayevna Bayturina Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma Moscow 20/07/2019 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years of imprisonment Moscow City Court 09/10/2019 Art.
6 (1) – fair hearing in criminal proceedings: refusal to examine evidence; contradictory statements by witnesses in the absence of proper assessment by the courts; Art.
6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence – use of the glass cabin in the courtroom; videoconference on appeal (ibid, §§ 152-53) 34249/20 30/06/2020 Pavel Gennadyevich USTINOV 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma Moscow 03/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 318 (2) of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 30/09/2019 Art.
6 (1) - fair hearing in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains about the domestic courts’ failure to examine his argument that the incident was caused by the actions of the officers (ibid, §§ 152-53) 35664/20* 29/07/2020 Maksim Alekseyevich MARTINTSOV 1993 Svetlana Nikolayevna Bayturina Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma Moscow 06/06/2019 Article 318 (1) of the Criminal Code - use of force against representatives of the State 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 31/01/2020 Art.
6 (1) - and Art.
6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to the lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – the applicant alleged that his confinement in a glass cage had impeded communication with his lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of the bailiffs, and the lack of confidentiality infringed his right to a fair trial.
Invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), he complained of the tight schedule of hearings and of not having had enough time or the necessary facilities to prepare his defence (Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §§ 139-54).
He further complained of restrictions on his right to consult the relevant documents in his criminal case file and that he had a total of only 7 hours to consult the documents.
50241/22* 13/10/2022 Olga Valeriyevna BENDAS 1985 Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya Strasbourg Rally "Free Navalnyy" Moscow 23/01/2021 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 2 years of imprisonment Supreme Court of Russia 16/06/2022 Art.
6 (1) - fair hearing in criminal proceedings - During the trial, on 29/04/2021, the applicant found out that there was a video of the event recorded by the police officers’ body cameras, which had not been examined by the investigation, and which proved that she had falsely confessed to the crime.
The court rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s request to examine this evidence and sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment.
Published on 2 December 2024 (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 7 November 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised.
This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 11 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see 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).
APPENDIX – List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) No.
Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law 26009/18* 22/05/2018 Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KREPKIN 1984 Ilnur Ilgizovich Sharapov Moscow Opposition rally Moscow 26/03/2017 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years of imprisonment Moscow City Court 26/03/2018 Art.
6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos.
2653/13 and 60980/14, § 182, 4 October 2016) 14154/20 05/03/2020 Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich KOVALENKO 1971 Ilnur Ilgizovich Sharapov Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma Moscow 27/07/2019 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 17/10/2019 Art.
6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence - the motion of the defence to adjourn the hearing for several days after the examination of evidence was dismissed, the applicant and his lawyer were given 20 min.
to prepare their pleadings (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos.
2653/13 and 60980/14, § 152, 4 October 2016); Art.
6 (3) (c) - inability to have confidential consultations with a lawyer during the trial, because of a glass compartment (ibid, § 153) 18392/20* 26/03/2020 Kirill Sergeyevich ZHUKOV 1990 Svetlana Nikolayevna Bayturina Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma Moscow 20/07/2019 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years of imprisonment Moscow City Court 09/10/2019 Art.
6 (1) – fair hearing in criminal proceedings: refusal to examine evidence; contradictory statements by witnesses in the absence of proper assessment by the courts; Art.
6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence – use of the glass cabin in the courtroom; videoconference on appeal (ibid, §§ 152-53) 34249/20 30/06/2020 Pavel Gennadyevich USTINOV 1995 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma Moscow 03/08/2019 article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 318 (2) of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 30/09/2019 Art.
6 (1) - fair hearing in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains about the domestic courts’ failure to examine his argument that the incident was caused by the actions of the officers (ibid, §§ 152-53) 35664/20* 29/07/2020 Maksim Alekseyevich MARTINTSOV 1993 Svetlana Nikolayevna Bayturina Moscow Elections to Moscow Duma Moscow 06/06/2019 Article 318 (1) of the Criminal Code - use of force against representatives of the State 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment Moscow City Court 31/01/2020 Art.
6 (1) - and Art.
6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to the lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – the applicant alleged that his confinement in a glass cage had impeded communication with his lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of the bailiffs, and the lack of confidentiality infringed his right to a fair trial.
Invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), he complained of the tight schedule of hearings and of not having had enough time or the necessary facilities to prepare his defence (Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §§ 139-54).
He further complained of restrictions on his right to consult the relevant documents in his criminal case file and that he had a total of only 7 hours to consult the documents.
50241/22* 13/10/2022 Olga Valeriyevna BENDAS 1985 Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya Strasbourg Rally "Free Navalnyy" Moscow 23/01/2021 article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State 2 years of imprisonment Supreme Court of Russia 16/06/2022 Art.
6 (1) - fair hearing in criminal proceedings - During the trial, on 29/04/2021, the applicant found out that there was a video of the event recorded by the police officers’ body cameras, which had not been examined by the investigation, and which proved that she had falsely confessed to the crime.
The court rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s request to examine this evidence and sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment.
Judgment
THIRD SECTIONCASE OF KREPKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 26009/18 and 5 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 June 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Krepkin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Mateja Đurović, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 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. They 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 criminal 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). 9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, 4 October 2016, 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, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. 12. Some 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. 13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, § 153. 14. Finally, the applicants raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning various aspects of fairness of the criminal proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-13 above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised by the present applications and that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see in particular Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, and 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 12 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
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)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the public event
Location
Date
Administrative / criminal offence
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
26009/18
22/05/2018
Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KREPKIN
1984
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 26/03/2017 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally in Moscow. During the clashes with the police, the applicant grabbed and tried to pull off a police officer’s shoulder protection gear. article 318 of the Criminal Code-use of force against a representative of the State
3 years of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
26/03/2018
10,000
14154/20
05/03/2020
Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich KOVALENKO
1971
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 27/07/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, he threw a trash can at a police officer, as a reaction to violence against peaceful demonstrators. article 318 of the Criminal Code- use of force against a representative of the State
3 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
17/10/2019
12,000
18392/20
26/03/2020
Kirill Sergeyevich ZHUKOV
1990
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 20/07/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant pulled a police officer’s helmet off. article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
3 years of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
09/10/2019
10,000
34249/20
30/06/2020
Pavel Gennadyevich USTINOV
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
On 03/08/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant shoved a police officer to the ground. article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 318 § 2 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
3 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
30/09/2019
12,000
35664/20
29/07/2020
Maksim Alekseyevich MARTINTSOV
1993
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 06/06/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant kicked a police officer
article 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
2 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
31/01/2020
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence - The applicant’s confinement in a glass cage throughout the trial was unnecessary, impeded his effective participation in the proceedings, impeded his communication with his lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of bailiffs; the lack of confidentiality infringed his right to a fair trial and the proper preparation of his defence (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 152, 4 October 2016). 9,000
50241/22
13/10/2022
Olga Valeriyevna BENDAS
1985
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
On 23/01/2021, the applicant took part in unauthorised “Free Navalny” rally in Moscow. During clashes with the police, the applicant picked up a police baton and allegedly threw it at the police. article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
2 years of imprisonment
Supreme Court of Russia
16/06/2022
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence - The applicant’s confinement in a glass cage was unnecessary, impeded her effective participation in the proceedings, communication with her lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of bailiffs; that the lack of confidentiality infringed her right to a fair trial (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 152, 4 October 2016). 8,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KREPKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 26009/18 and 5 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 June 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Krepkin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Mateja Đurović, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 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. They 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 criminal 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). 9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, 4 October 2016, 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, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. 12. Some 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. 13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, § 153. 14. Finally, the applicants raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning various aspects of fairness of the criminal proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-13 above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised by the present applications and that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see in particular Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, and 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 12 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
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)
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the public event
Location
Date
Administrative / criminal offence
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
26009/18
22/05/2018
Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KREPKIN
1984
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 26/03/2017 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally in Moscow. During the clashes with the police, the applicant grabbed and tried to pull off a police officer’s shoulder protection gear. article 318 of the Criminal Code-use of force against a representative of the State
3 years of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
26/03/2018
10,000
14154/20
05/03/2020
Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich KOVALENKO
1971
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 27/07/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, he threw a trash can at a police officer, as a reaction to violence against peaceful demonstrators. article 318 of the Criminal Code- use of force against a representative of the State
3 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
17/10/2019
12,000
18392/20
26/03/2020
Kirill Sergeyevich ZHUKOV
1990
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 20/07/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant pulled a police officer’s helmet off. article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
3 years of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
09/10/2019
10,000
34249/20
30/06/2020
Pavel Gennadyevich USTINOV
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
On 03/08/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant shoved a police officer to the ground. article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 318 § 2 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
3 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
30/09/2019
12,000
35664/20
29/07/2020
Maksim Alekseyevich MARTINTSOV
1993
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 06/06/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant kicked a police officer
article 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
2 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
31/01/2020
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence - The applicant’s confinement in a glass cage throughout the trial was unnecessary, impeded his effective participation in the proceedings, impeded his communication with his lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of bailiffs; the lack of confidentiality infringed his right to a fair trial and the proper preparation of his defence (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 152, 4 October 2016). 9,000
50241/22
13/10/2022
Olga Valeriyevna BENDAS
1985
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
On 23/01/2021, the applicant took part in unauthorised “Free Navalny” rally in Moscow. During clashes with the police, the applicant picked up a police baton and allegedly threw it at the police. article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
2 years of imprisonment
Supreme Court of Russia
16/06/2022
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence - The applicant’s confinement in a glass cage was unnecessary, impeded her effective participation in the proceedings, communication with her lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of bailiffs; that the lack of confidentiality infringed her right to a fair trial (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 152, 4 October 2016). 8,000
No. Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the public event
Location
Date
Administrative / criminal offence
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
26009/18
22/05/2018
Dmitriy Mikhaylovich KREPKIN
1984
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 26/03/2017 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally in Moscow. During the clashes with the police, the applicant grabbed and tried to pull off a police officer’s shoulder protection gear. article 318 of the Criminal Code-use of force against a representative of the State
3 years of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
26/03/2018
10,000
14154/20
05/03/2020
Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich KOVALENKO
1971
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 27/07/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, he threw a trash can at a police officer, as a reaction to violence against peaceful demonstrators. article 318 of the Criminal Code- use of force against a representative of the State
3 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
17/10/2019
12,000
18392/20
26/03/2020
Kirill Sergeyevich ZHUKOV
1990
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 20/07/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant pulled a police officer’s helmet off. article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
3 years of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
09/10/2019
10,000
34249/20
30/06/2020
Pavel Gennadyevich USTINOV
1995
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
On 03/08/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant shoved a police officer to the ground. article 20.2 § 5 of CAO, article 318 § 2 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
3 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
30/09/2019
12,000
35664/20
29/07/2020
Maksim Alekseyevich MARTINTSOV
1993
Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
On 06/06/2019 the applicant took part in an unauthorised rally against the elections to the Moscow State Duma. During clashes with the police, the applicant kicked a police officer
article 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
2 years and 6 months of imprisonment
Moscow City Court
31/01/2020
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence - The applicant’s confinement in a glass cage throughout the trial was unnecessary, impeded his effective participation in the proceedings, impeded his communication with his lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of bailiffs; the lack of confidentiality infringed his right to a fair trial and the proper preparation of his defence (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 152, 4 October 2016). 9,000
50241/22
13/10/2022
Olga Valeriyevna BENDAS
1985
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
On 23/01/2021, the applicant took part in unauthorised “Free Navalny” rally in Moscow. During clashes with the police, the applicant picked up a police baton and allegedly threw it at the police. article 318 of the Criminal Code - use of force against a representative of the State
2 years of imprisonment
Supreme Court of Russia
16/06/2022
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (b) - unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence - The applicant’s confinement in a glass cage was unnecessary, impeded her effective participation in the proceedings, communication with her lawyer in confidential conditions due to the presence of bailiffs; that the lack of confidentiality infringed her right to a fair trial (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 152, 4 October 2016). 8,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.