Vysokovskiy and Others v. Russia
Inadmissible
Berörda konventionsartiklar
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 28054/20 Aleksey Markovich VYSOKOVSKIY against Russia and 5 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 June 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva , President , Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Court notes from the outset that, in the present case, the applications were lodged more than six months after the final decisions in respect of the applicants’ grievances under Articles 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention were taken (see the appended table). It must therefore ascertain whether the applicants complied with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court further notes that, as regards applications introduced in 2020, the method of calculation of the six-month rule has been adjusted in order to handle the difficulties to which the global pandemic and widespread lockdown gave rise and to preserve the essence of the right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention. In particular, the six-month rule was exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total, whenever a calendar six-month period either started to run or, on the contrary, was due to expire at any time between 16 March and 15 June 2020 (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022).
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that neither the dates of the introduction of the applications nor the dates of the expiration of the six-month time-limit fall within the above-mentioned period (16 March to 15 June 2020). The exceptional measure are therefore not applicable in the present case (compare Kitanovska and Barbulovski v. North Macedonia , no. 53030/19, § 39-40, 9 May 2023; and Masse v. France (dec.), no. 47506/20, 25 March 2025). It follows that the applications were lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.
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
28054/20
26/06/2020
Aleksey Markovich VYSOKOVSKIY
1980
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 17,000
Moscow City Court
20/12/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - The applicant complains about his inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence
32036/20
23/07/2020
Ivan Yuryevich CHISTYAKOV
1998
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
18/12/2019
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence,
32065/20
23/07/2020
Darya Nikolayevna KORNILOVA
1976
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
22/01/2020
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence
32098/20
23/07/2020
Andrey Vasilyevich SAYAPIN
1986
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
22/01/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016),
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Unlawful detention on 27/07/2019, detention in excess of 3 hours
44299/20
16/09/2020
Artem Sergeyevich PRIVALENKO
1996
Dmitriy Yuryevich RYANNEL
1997
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma (events related to the first applicant)
Moscow
27/07/2019
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma (events related to the second applicant)
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
18/12/2019
Moscow City Court
16/12/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - both applicants complain of absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016),
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - both applicants complain of inability to cross-examine two police officers Mr M. and Mr P. on whose written statements the applicants’ convictions were based.
44477/20
16/09/2020
Sergey Dmitriyevich MISHUNIN
1992
Vyacheslav Viktorovich MOSKVICHEV
1970
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000 (each applicant)
Moscow City Court
16/12/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in all sets of the administrative proceedings concerning both applicants,
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officer on whose written statements the applicants’ convictions were based in all sets of the administrative proceedings.