THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GRIGORYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 50146/20 and 15 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
30 April 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Grigoryeva 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 9 April 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 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 restrictions on the location, timing and manner of conduct of public events, imposed pursuant to regional prohibitions on holding public events in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 11 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally of the restrictions on the location, timing and manner of conduct of public events, as described in the appended table. 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). 9. In the leading cases of Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017) and Kablis v. Russia (nos. 48310/16 and 59663/17, 30 April 2019) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court further refers to Nemytov and Others v. Russia (no. 1257/21 and 2 others, 27 May 2025) in so far as the application by the authorities of the COVID‑19‑related restrictions to assemblies is concerned. 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-19-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 on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 11. In particular, the Court reiterates that the authorities enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in addressing the COVID-19 health crisis at the material time (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, §§ 115-17, and Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain, no. 49363/20, § 81, 17 October 2024). As the virus was still actively circulating and certain COVID-19 restrictions remained in force in the Russian regions concerned, those measures pursued the pressing social need of protecting individual and public health (see Pasquinelli and Others v. San Marino, no. 24622/22, § 99, 29 August 2024, and Nemytov and Others, cited above, § 139). 12. However, by the time of the events at issue (see the appended table), the strict lockdown regimes introduced in spring 2020 were no longer in force in the relevant Russian regions, and COVID-19-related restrictions had been progressively eased. Public transport was operating normally, shopping centres and commercial venues were open, educational activities were continuing in person, and sports, cultural and entertainment events could be held, subject to sanitary safeguards and, in some instances, capacity limits. This regulatory model thus relied primarily on hygiene requirements and targeted restrictions rather than on a general suspension of public life and activities. 13. In these circumstances, no sufficient justification has been advanced for maintaining regional bans on all forms of public protest, while permitting leisure and commercial activities under certain conditions. The Court is therefore not convinced that the domestic courts’ reliance on the “high alert” regime, taken in itself, constituted a sufficient basis for restricting the applicants’ rights under Article 11 (see Nemytov and Others, cited above, § 145). 14. Having regard to its case-law on the matter, the Court considers that in the present case the interferences with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly, as described in the appended table, were disproportionate to the aim pursued, and the domestic authorities overstepped the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them. 15. The applicants raised further additional complaints. In view of the findings in paragraphs 10-15 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. Having regard to the nature of the applicants’ complaints, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non‑pecuniary damage the applicants may have suffered (see, among recent authorities, Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 76, 21 November 2023, and the cases cited therein; see also, mutatis mutandis, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 29, 27 November 2018).

Outcome for Article 11: violation