{"id":13272,"date":"2025-11-14T09:32:36","date_gmt":"2025-11-14T07:32:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/11\/case-of-konovalov-and-others-v-russia\/"},"modified":"2025-11-14T09:32:36","modified_gmt":"2025-11-14T07:32:36","slug":"case-of-konovalov-and-others-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/11\/case-of-konovalov-and-others-v-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF KONOVALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Konovalov and Others v. Russia, concerning multiple applications related to the disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants primarily complained about violations of their freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, citing arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to participation in public events, including those related to COVID-19 restrictions and anti-war protests. The Court found that these measures were not &#8220;necessary in a democratic society,&#8221; thus violating Article 11. Additionally, the Court addressed other complaints regarding unlawful detention and fairness of administrative proceedings, finding violations under its well-established case-law. The Court has jurisdiction over these cases because the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages.<\/p>\n<p>The decision is structured as follows: It begins with the procedural history, outlining the lodging of the applications and notification to the Russian Government. The facts section briefly describes the applicants&#8217; complaints regarding disproportionate measures during public assemblies. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court&#8217;s jurisdiction. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law and recent findings in similar cases. It also considers other alleged violations under existing case-law and determines the admissibility of the complaints. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 regarding compensation. The decision concludes with the Court&#8217;s unanimous ruling, declarations of admissibility and violations, and orders for compensation. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions in the provided text.<\/p>\n<p>**** The most important provision of this decision is the confirmation that the Russian Federation is responsible for violations of human rights that took place before September 16, 2022. This means that the ECtHR retains jurisdiction to examine cases related to events that occurred before this date. The decision also highlights the consistent pattern of violations related to freedom of assembly and unlawful detention in Russia, particularly in the context of public protests. The awarded compensations to the applicants are also important as a form of remedy for the violations they experienced.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/?i=001-245885\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Konovalov and Others v. Russia, concerning multiple applications related to the disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia. The applicants primarily complained about violations of their freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, citing&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[129,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-decisions","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13272"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13272\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}