Case Summary and Outcome

The Third Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Russia violated the applicants’ rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly by arresting, detaining, and fining them for peaceful demonstrations held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case involved three Russian citizens, Nemytov, Azar, and Burma, who were prosecuted under regional bans on public events, including solo pickets and small outdoor protests. The Court found that although the restrictions aimed to protect public health, Russia’s “blanket ban” on assemblies was excessive, lacked proportionality, and effectively silenced political expression. It stressed that “political life cannot be suspended during a pandemic” and that public health concerns could not justify indefinite suppression of peaceful protest. The Court ruled that the sanctions, particularly administrative detention, were disproportionate and created a chilling effect on free speech and civic participation, thus expanding the protection of democratic freedoms under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

---

Facts

In early 2020, the global COVID-19 pandemic prompted the Russian Federation to introduce sweeping public health measures restricting gatherings and movement. Following the World Health Organization’s declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Russian authorities began to implement preventive restrictions across the country.

On March 5, 2020, the Mayor of Moscow issued Decree No. 12-UM, declaring a state of high alert and prohibiting all sports, entertainment, and other public events. A similar decree, No. 121 of March 13, 2020, was issued by the St. Petersburg City Administration, also declaring a state of high alert and banning public events. These measures, initially temporary, were extended and remained in effect throughout 2020 and well into 2021. Under these decrees, individuals were prohibited from participating in any form of public assembly, including demonstrations and rallies. Violations were punishable under the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), particularly Articles 20.2 (breach of public event rules), 20.2.2 (unauthorized mass gatherings), and 20.6.1 (non-compliance with rules during a state of high alert).

Against this legal backdrop, the three Applicants, Viktor Aleksandrovich Nemytov, Ilya Vilyamovich Azar, and Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna Burma, were prosecuted for participating in or organizing peaceful public demonstrations.

Proceedings Concerning Nemytov (Application No. 1257/21)

On May 26, 2020, Nemytov, a Russian national and civic activist, staged a solo demonstration outside the Moscow Department of the Interior. He held a placard reading “Free [V..]”, protesting the criminal prosecution of the administrator of the Telegram channel “Police Ombudsman”, which had exposed alleged police misconduct. At that time, Moscow was the epicenter of the pandemic in Russia, with more than 50,000 confirmed cases and over 2,000 COVID-related deaths. Despite his protest being a single-person event, normally exempt from notification requirements, the authorities treated it as a violation of pandemic restrictions.

Police officers arrested Nemytov almost immediately, escorted him to a nearby station, and detained him for approximately eighteen hours as an administrative suspect. That same day, a record of administrative offence was drawn up under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO (repeated breach of the rules for holding public events). The record stated that while solo demonstrations did not normally require prior authorization, Nemytov had acted in violation of Decree No. 12-UM, which had prohibited any form of public event between March 5 and May 31, 2020, as well as a March 29, 2020, Order of Rospotrebnadzor (the regional health authority).

On May 27, 2020, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow convicted Nemytov and imposed fifteen days of administrative detention. The District Court relied on the arrest records, police reports, and photographic evidence.

On appeal, Nemytov argued that the charge was legally flawed. He contended that Article 20.2 was a blanket provision referring to the Public Events Act (Federal Law No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004), and that a state of high alert was not a statutory ground for restricting such events. He further asserted that any violation of public health rules should have been prosecuted under Article 6.3 (violation of sanitary rules) or Article 20.6.1 (breach of conduct rules during a state of high alert), not under Article 20.2.

On May 29, 2020, the Moscow City Court partially upheld the conviction but reclassified the offence under Article 20.6.1 § 1 of the CAO for failure to comply with the rules of conduct during a state of high alert. The City Court confirmed that the ban on public events applied to solo demonstrations and imposed a fine of 20,000 rubles (approximately €256). Given that Nemytov had already served part of his administrative detention, he was exempted from payment and released the same day.

Later, on June 5, 2020, Nemytov and about ten others conducted a sequence of solo demonstrations in front of the Moscow Department of the Interior to protest the arrest of journalist and municipal deputy Azar. The demonstrators took turns holding placards, each standing alone for short intervals to comply with the “solo” requirement. Police officers arrested Nemytov twelve minutes after he began, detaining him until later that evening. 

On July 22, 2020, an administrative record was drawn up under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, asserting that the event was a coordinated group protest requiring prior notification. On October 2, 2020, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found that the rotating pickets were organized and collectively aimed, constituting a group event rather than isolated solo demonstrations. It convicted Nemytov of a repeated breach of public event regulations and fined him 150,000 rubles. Nemytov appealed, arguing that the authorities failed to prove coordination and that his individual act was peaceful and spontaneous. On January 18, 2021, the Moscow City Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment. He paid the fine on March 10, 2021.

On June 25, 2020, Mr. Nemytov held another solo protest in Red Square, Moscow, against constitutional amendments then under referendum. Police immediately intervened, arrested him, and detained him overnight. The Tverskoy District Court convicted him the next day of holding a public event in a prohibited location, near the official residence of the President, constituting a repeated violation under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO. He received twenty days of administrative detention, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on June 30, 2020.

Proceedings Concerning Azar (Application No. 3244/21)

On May 26, 2020, following Nemytov’s arrest, Azar, a journalist with Novaya Gazeta and an elected member of the Khamovniki District Council, announced on social media that he would hold a solo protest in solidarity with both V. and Nemytov. He publicly stated that social distancing would be observed, maintaining at least two meters between participants in a “picket line.” Shortly after beginning his protest with placards reading “Free V.” and “Free Nemytov”, police detained him. He was charged under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO for participating in a public event in violation of Decree No. 12-UM.

On May 28, 2020, the Tverskoy District Court sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention, citing his prior conviction for similar offenses.

On appeal, the Moscow City Court found that several individuals had participated sequentially in coordinated solo protests and that the event, though nominally individual, constituted a collective public gathering requiring prior notice. The court reclassified his conduct under Article 20.2 § 5 (holding an unauthorized group event) and upheld the conviction, reducing the detention to ten days. Azar’s further appeal to the Second Cassation Court of Moscow was dismissed on August 10, 2020.

Proceedings Concerning Burma (Application No. 46231/21)

On January 31, 2021, during widespread demonstrations in St. Petersburg in support of opposition leader Alexey Navalnyy, Burma was present near Zagorodnyy Avenue, where approximately one hundred people had gathered. According to her account, she had been walking home and approached police officers to ask for directions, as streets were cordoned off. She was arrested without explanation and transported to a police van, later spending the night in custody.

The following day, the Nevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg convicted her under Article 20.2.2 § 1 of the CAO, which penalized participation in mass gatherings that violated health protection rules. The court concluded that she had voluntarily joined a mass event without maintaining the required social distance, in breach of Orders Nos. 9 and 15 of the Chief Medical Officer of Russia, mandating a distance of at least 1.5 meters. She was sentenced to ten days’ administrative detention, commencing immediately.

Burma appealed, asserting that she had merely been passing through the area, that the court failed to prove her active participation, and that the blanket ban on assemblies was disproportionate given that other indoor activities, such as dining, theater attendance, and shopping, remained permitted. She also argued that her arrest and detention were unnecessary and excessive, causing a chilling effect on political expression.

On March 16, 2021, the St. Petersburg City Court upheld her conviction, finding that the restrictions pursued legitimate aims of protecting public health and safety. The court concluded that her participation, even if peaceful, breached sanitary requirements in force during the pandemic.

Following their domestic proceedings, the Applicants lodged separate applications with the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 of the Convention. They alleged that their arrests, detentions, and convictions had violated their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, among other provisions. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government, and third-party interventions were submitted by Human Rights Centre Memorial and OVD-Info.

---

Decision Overview

The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights delivered the opinion. The primary issue before the Court was whether the Applicants’ arrests, convictions, and administrative detentions for participating in peaceful demonstrations during COVID-19 restrictions constituted interferences with their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that were “necessary in a democratic society”.

The Applicants contended that the Russian authorities had unlawfully interfered with their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, guaranteed under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They maintained that their arrests, administrative prosecutions, and detentions had been based on blanket bans imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which lacked any individualized or proportionate assessment of the necessity of such restrictions. They argued that their protests had been peaceful, non-disruptive, and compliant with social distancing measures. In particular, they submitted that the authorities had failed to show that their actions had caused any actual harm or public danger. The Applicants stressed that the “state of high alert” decrees did not constitute valid grounds for curtailing constitutionally protected rights, and that those decrees had been applied “as a pretext for suppressing dissent and sanctioning politically motivated expression.” 

The Applicants further argued that the domestic courts had disregarded the substance of their constitutional and Convention rights and had convicted them without establishing that their actions had caused harm or posed a risk to public safety or health. Nemytov and Azar both maintained that solo demonstrations did not require prior notification and could not lawfully be prohibited by regional decrees issued under a “state of high alert”. [paras. 16, 22] They claimed that the sanctions imposed were “excessive and unjustified,” intended to “discourage participation in peaceful public expression” and to create a “chilling effect” on political activity. [paras. 16, 23, 36] Burma asserted that her arrest during a peaceful protest in St. Petersburg had been selective and politically motivated, as similar or larger gatherings in commercial and cultural venues were permitted at the same time. The Applicants thus maintained that the interferences with their rights were not “necessary in a democratic society” and violated the guarantees of the Convention.

On the other hand, the Government contended that the Applicants’ convictions were lawful and proportionate responses to the worsening COVID-19 situation in Russia, particularly in Moscow. They argued that under section 8(1) of the Public Events Act, public events could not be held where there was a “risk to the safety of participants,” and that the Sanitary Welfare Act and Emergency Protection Act authorized restrictions to prevent “the negative development of an [epidemiological] situation.” [para. 101] The ban under Decree No. 12-UM, adopted during the “state of high alert,” aimed to “stabilize infection rates” and protect citizens’ health. [para. 101] The Government maintained that the Applicants had breached these lawful restrictions and endangered others, warranting administrative prosecution.

The third-party interveners, Human Rights Centre “Memorial” and OVD-Info, submitted in December 2021 that the “literal interpretation” of the COVID-19-related ban on public events did not “definitively” extend to solo demonstrations and that the domestic authorities had applied the ban inconsistently across regions. [para. 102] They argued that Decree No. 12-UM did not expressly prohibit non-mass public actions such as one-person pickets, and that courts in Moscow had differed in their interpretation, some applying the ban broadly, while others had found that solo demonstrations were not covered unless they posed a risk to public safety “in connection with a state of high alert.” The interveners emphasized that even after restrictions on other mass events, such as sports and leisure activities, were lifted by September 2020, the ban on public events, including peaceful demonstrations, remained in force, reflecting a lack of clarity, predictability, and uniform judicial interpretation. 

The Court began its analysis by finding an interference with the Applicants’ Convention rights arising from the discontinuation of the protests, arrests, detention, and administrative prosecutions. For the first and second Applicants, it was accepted that the measures interfered with freedom of expression (Nemytov) and freedom of assembly (Azar). As to Burma, although she had at times denied participation, the Court treated her conviction for participation as an interference with her right to peaceful assembly, in line with its prior approach in comparable circumstances. [para. 106;  Zülküf Murat Kahraman v. Turkey, and Kilin v. Russia]

Turning to lawfulness, the Court proceeded on the assumption that the interference had been “prescribed by law.” [para. 107] In the first and second Applicants’ cases, it noted domestic findings applying Decree no. 12-UM to solo pickets and the Constitutional Court’s 2022 position confirming that view, and it therefore accepted lawfulness without determining foreseeability. [para. 109] For Burma, despite ambiguities in classifying a 100-person gathering as not a “public event,” the Court likewise assumed lawfulness given the record and the absence of Government observations addressing her argument. [para. 110]

On legitimate aims, the Court accepted, against the backdrop of its pandemic jurisprudence, that the interferences pursued the protection of health and “the rights and freedoms of others,” even though domestic decisions were terse on articulating a “key interest of society” (paras. 111-112). It acknowledged its recognition of COVID-19 as an exceptional situation that warrants urgent measures. [Terheș v. Romania; Pasquinelli and Others v. San Marino, and Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain]

In consideration of the necessity of the restrictions, the Court referred to CGAS v. Switzerland [GC] and Vavřička v. Czech Republic and reaffirmed the general principles and the wide margin of appreciation in public-health contexts, while emphasizing that the margin is not unlimited and must be accompanied by procedural safeguards and individualized proportionality review. [Kudrevičius v. Lithuania; Lashmankin v. Russia; Novikova v. Russia] The Court, while referring to Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom and Lăcătuș v. Switzerland, reiterated that general measures may be legitimate, but their “blanket” character demands “strong justification” and close judicial scrutiny. [paras. 121, 124]

Applying those standards to Moscow on May 26, 2020, the Court accepted that a pressing social need existed early in the pandemic but stressed that Moscow had imposed a total suspension of public events, including solo demonstrations, for months. On Azar’s Application, the Court agreed that his action formed part of rotating solo pickets by “five to ten people” [para. 127], yet it found no concrete reason why immediate arrest, escort, several hours’ detention, and especially ten days’ administrative detention were necessary to protect health, given the event’s peaceful and brief nature and the lack of individualized risk findings. It thus held a violation of Article 11 read in light of Article 10.

On Nemytov’s solo picket on May 26, 2020, the Court noted that the appellate court reclassified the offense to the pandemic-specific Article 20.6.1 CAO, imposed only a fine, and exempted payment because he had already spent three days in custody. While it regretted the lack of explicit proportionality analysis regarding that custody, it ultimately found, in light of the wide margin and the appellate mitigation, that the interference did not exceed necessity; it therefore found no violation of Article 10.  For St Petersburg on January 31, 2021, the Court underscored that, unlike early 2020, a strict lockdown no longer operated and other indoor activities had resumed with capacity limits. It criticized the city’s de facto suspension of the right of assembly with no nuanced exceptions while allowing comparable leisure activities, and it rejected the domestic courts’ conclusory reliance on a generalized “ban on assemblies” and “health and epidemiological requirements” as a “sufficient basis.” [paras. 142-145, 148] It found that arresting, transporting in crowded vans, and detaining Burma for breaching distancing rules contradicted stated health aims and that courts failed to show the required balancing or the “negative consequences” element central to liability under Article 20.2.2 CAO (paras. 146-149). It thus found a violation of Article 11. [paras. 150-151]

Addressing Nemytov’s June 5, 2020 rotating solo pickets, the Court evaluated the interference solely as a notification-rule case (the domestic courts did not ground it in COVID-19 restrictions) and found that imposing a significant fine for a peaceful, small-scale protest on a matter of public interest, without assessing concrete risks or considering tolerance, was not “necessary in a democratic society,” consistent with Navalnyy v. Russia,, and Novikova. It therefore found a violation of Article 11.

Finally, regarding Nemytov’s Red Square solo picket of June 25, 2020, the Court, even assuming lawfulness and aims of public safety and preventing disorder, held that a categorical, venue-based prohibition near the Kremlin was unjustified absent case-specific security assessment, and that twenty days’ administrative detention for a short, peaceful solo picket, imposed solely by reference to the general ban, was clearly disproportionate and chilling, contrary to Lashmankin, Kablis v. Russia, Glukhin v. Russia, and Novikova. It therefore found a violation of Article 10 read in light of Article 11.

In conclusion, the Court held that the Russian authorities exceeded their “wide margin of appreciation” by enforcing a prolonged and indiscriminate “blanket ban” on public events without individualized proportionality review, rendering the restrictions not “necessary in a democratic society.” [paras. 114, 124, 145] It found violations of Article 11, read in light of Article 10, in the cases of the second and third Applicants, emphasizing that their arrests, administrative detention, and prosecutions for peaceful protests lacked justification, failed to balance competing interests, and produced a “chilling effect” on public participation. For the first Applicant, the Court found no violation regarding the May 26, 2020, solo picket, given the appellate court’s mitigation and substitution of a fine. However, it found violations concerning his June 5, 2020, rotating protests and June 25, 2020, Red Square demonstration, holding that both sanctions were disproportionate and that the blanket venue and procedural restrictions failed to meet the Convention’s necessity test.

---