The case involves a legal challenge brought by three Russian nationals who were prosecuted for participating in peaceful protests during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case raises issues under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The applicants all engaged in solo or static demonstrations between May and June 2020.
The applicants alleged violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, arguing that the administrative penalties imposed on them for violating COVID-related restrictions on public gatherings were disproportionate and lacked individual assessment. They emphasized that their demonstrations were peaceful, occurred in public spaces, and posed no demonstrable risk to public health.
In the course of the proceedings, the European Court of Human Rights considered the domestic legal framework enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting in March 2020, authorities in Moscow and St Petersburg introduced a state of “high alert,” under which all public events were banned. These measures, initially justified by public health concerns, remained in force until well after the World Health Organization ended the global emergency status in May 2023.
One applicant had taken part in solo protests in Red Square, a location of political and historical significance. The authorities sentenced him to twenty days of administrative detention. The Court found that the blanket prohibition on protests in such areas lacked sufficient justification and failed to consider the individual circumstances of the protest.
The Court held that the government had not demonstrated why less intrusive measures could not have achieved the same public health aims. It ruled that the enforcement of the protest bans against the applicants had a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression and assembly, in violation of Articles 10 and 11.
Additionally, the applicants raised complaints under Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found that the applicants’ arrests and administrative detentions were not supported by sufficient legal justification and that the proceedings failed to meet the standards of fairness required under the Convention. In particular, the absence of a prosecutor’s participation in the hearings and the inability of the applicants to effectively challenge their detention were key deficiencies.
Furthermore, the Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, noting that the applicants' appeals against their detention had no suspensive effect. This meant they remained in custody while awaiting appeal outcomes, undermining the right to an effective remedy.
Although the applicants also raised claims under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 6 § 3(d) (right to examine witnesses), the Court considered it unnecessary to examine these issues separately, given the multiple violations already established. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant €9,700 in non-pecuniary damages. The first applicant received an additional €1,730 to compensate for a fine already paid.
The Court reaffirmed that despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe, it remains accountable for Convention violations that occurred before its exit. The judgment underscores that emergency measures—even during a public health crisis—must remain proportionate and cannot override fundamental rights without robust justification. The Committee of Ministers will continue to supervise the implementation of this and other judgments against Russia.
Click here to read the ECtHR judgement.