NEMYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 1257/21 (No Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} : Third Section) [2025] ECHR 125 (27 May 2025)

Executive summary

The Court examined three applications against Russia arising from administrative arrests, detentions, and fines imposed for participation in public events and solo demonstrations during COVID-19 restrictions in 2020–2021. It held that several of the interferences with Articles 10 and 11 were not necessary in a democratic society because the domestic courts failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons or conduct a proportionality assessment, though it found one Article 10 conviction proportionate in the specific circumstances described in the summary heading.

Key points

• Applicants were Russian nationals prosecuted in administrative-offence proceedings for public events or solo demonstrations during regional COVID-19-related bans and restrictions.
• The Court found violations where detention/fines were imposed without a proper proportionality assessment and noted the sanctions were capable of a "chilling effect."
• The Court said the authorities overstepped their wide margin of appreciation in the cases involving public-event restrictions tied to COVID-19 measures.
• For the first applicant’s conviction for a solo demonstration under a state of high alert, the Court found the interference proportionate and no overstepping of the margin of appreciation.
• The judgment also records complaints under Article 5 § 1, Article 6 § 1, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, including issues of unlawful deprivation of liberty, impartial tribunal, and lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against administrative detention.
• No sanctions/export-control issue is addressed directly; the relevance is to state emergency restrictions and the legality of enforcement against expression and assembly.

Why it matters

This decision is relevant to sovereign-risk and political-risk analysis because it shows the Court scrutinizing how emergency public-health restrictions are used to punish protest activity, especially where sanctions have a chilling effect. For compliance and litigation, it underscores that administrative penalties linked to emergency or public-order rules need clear legal basis, individualized reasoning, and proportionality analysis.

Implications

Enforcement authorities relying on emergency or pandemic-era restrictions should expect heightened scrutiny if they impose arrest or fines for expressive conduct without a documented proportionality analysis. For litigants and advisors, the judgment supports challenges to administrative convictions where domestic courts mechanically apply blanket bans or fail to distinguish between public-health regulation and restrictions on assembly and expression.