THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MONAKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 75484/14 and 14 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 Monakhov 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. Domestic courts found that the applicants had staged their solo demonstrations in the vicinity of the Moscow Kremlin, the official residence of the President of Russia, where public events were prohibited, and convicted them under various CAO provisions. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
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. 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). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators in connection with their having breached the ban on public events in the vicinity of the Kremlin, the residence of the President of Russia. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8. In the leading case Nemytov and Others v. Russia (nos. 1257/21 and 2 others, §§ 159-163, 27 May 2025), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016 and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017 and, in so far as relevant, Ibragimova v. Russia, no. 68537/13, 30 August 2022). 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 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 expression were not “necessary in a democratic society”. 10. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. 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. 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 Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 112-21, 31 July 2014 and Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 110/112, 4 December 2014, concerning inadequate conditions of detention in police stations; 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; 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 9-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTIONDamage

13. The applicants claimed compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in various amounts. The Government disputed their claims as excessive and unfounded. 14. Having regard to its case-law (see, in particular, Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022; see further, mutatis mutandis, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023, and Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018), the nature of the applicants’ complaints, as well as the awards made by the Court to the applicants earlier (see, among others, Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 43102/15 and 24 others, 4 July 2024), Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 53194/16 and 34 others, 4 July 2024), Galperin and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 38377/15 and 9 others, 12 September 2024), Fayzulin and Others v. Russia [Committee] (nos. 48841/14 and 13 others, 12 September 2024)), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in application no. 54935/18. 15. As regards the remaining applicants, having had regard to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), as well as to awards made by the Court to some of the applicants earlier (see, for instance, Dianova and Others v. Russia, nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, § 92, 10 September 2024, and Zakharova and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award them the sums indicated in the appended table, and to dismiss the remainder of their claims for damage. Costs and expenses
16. The applicants, save for Mr Sokolovskiy in application no. 11402/20, requested the reimbursement of legal costs incurred at the national level and before the Court in various amounts. All of them requested that the awards under that head be paid into the bank accounts of their representatives. The Government considered the claims to be excessive and unfounded, noting that the applicants had not incurred any expenses. 17. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. Applications in which the applicants were represented by Mr N. Zboroshenko
18. The applicants in applications nos. 64928/16, 71000/16, 71753/16, 71781/16, 77411/16, 4776/17, 10000/17, 31949/17, 82627/17, 54935/18, 31228/20 requested that the amounts awarded under that head be paid directly to their representative Mr N. Zborozhenko. 19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and its case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Dianova and Others v. Russia, nos. 21286/15 and 4 others, § 95, 10 September 2024), and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in applications nos. 64928/16, 71000/16, 71753/16, 71781/16, 77411/16, 4776/17, 10000/17, 31949/17, 82627/17, 54935/18 and 31228/20 jointly, 2,500 euros (EUR), to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr N. Zboroshenko, as indicated by the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims under this head. Remaining applications in which the applicants claimed costs and expenses
20. As concerns applications nos. 75484/14, 50917/15 and 1299/20, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and its case-law, and noting, in particular, straightforward and repetitive nature of the applications the Court considers it reasonable to award them the sums indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts. The Court dismisses the remainder of their claims under this head.

Outcome for Article 3: violation