Makichyan and Others v. Russia
Inadmissible
Berörda konventionsartiklar
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 33684/20 Arshak Arturovich MAKICHYAN against Russia and 5 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 November 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President , Mateja Đurović, 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
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”). 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 observes that, in the present case, the applications were lodged more than six months after the final decisions in respect of the applicants’ grievances under Article 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 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 is 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 11 December 2025.
Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh 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
33684/20
31/07/2020
Arshak Arturovich MAKICHYAN
1994
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Climate change rally
Suvorovskaya square, Moscow
25/10/2019
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
administrative detention for 6 days
Moscow City Court
24/12/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 5.15 p.m. to 11.10 p.m. on 25/10/2019,
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 - inability to cross-examine police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based
35218/20
11/08/2020
Marina Vladimirovna MALAKHOVA
1980
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of I. Golunov
Moscow
12/06/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
22/01/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 12.45 p.m. to 10.25 p.m. on 12/06/2019,
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 - inability to cross-examine police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based
37573/20
18/08/2020
Vadim Pavlovich LUKASHEVICH
1963
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally to call 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. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 2.10 p.m. to 7.57 p.m. on 27/07/2019,
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 - impossibility to cross-examine police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based
37612/20
18/08/2020
Aleksandr Nikolayevich PAVELYEV
1990
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of I. Golunov
Moscow
12/06/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
10/02/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 1.27 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. on 12/06/2019,
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 - inability to cross-examine police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based
49799/20
20/10/2020
Yekaterina Vasilyevna KHARLANOVA
1989
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
20/01/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 5.00 p.m. to 11.45 p.m. on 27/07/2019,
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 - inability to cross-examine police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based
51101/20
03/11/2020
Aleksey Igorevich SUDILOVSKIY
1986
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally to call for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
04/02/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty – escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report, detention in excess of 3 hours and without "exceptional circumstances", from 8.40 p.m. on 27/07/2019 to 6.00 p.m. on 28/07/2019,
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 - inability to cross-examine police officer on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based