Judgment Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 4) - Unlawful imprisonment, failure to assess the risks to his health and life, and subjecting him to degrading treatment violated the Convention

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 032 (2026)   03.02.2026   Unlawful imprisonment of Aleksey Navalnyy, failure to assess the risks to his   health and life, and subjecting him to inhuman and degrading treatment   violated the Convention   The case Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 4) (applications nos. 4743/21 and 37083/21) concerned   Aleksey Navalnyy’s arrest and detention in January 2021 when he returned to Russia following his   alleged poisoning in August 2020 and medical treatment abroad, followed by proceedings which   culminated in the activation of a suspended prison sentence previously imposed on him in 2014 and   his subsequent imprisonment on the basis of that sentence.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had   been:   a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights;   violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) on account of Mr Navalnyy’s detention   pending the outcome of the proceedings concerning the activation of his suspended sentence and of   his subsequent imprisonment from 2 February 2021 onwards once the suspended sentence had been   activated; and   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the overall   conditions of his detention.   The Court found that Mr Navalnyy’s 2014 conviction had been based on an unforeseeable application   of Russian criminal law and had been the result of proceedings that amounted to a “flagrant denial of   justice” (it relied in this connection on the findings made in the judgment of 17 October 2017);   therefore his imprisonment after 2 February 2021 had not been “lawful”. Moreover, his detention   during the proceedings had been based on legal provisions that were not applicable to his situation,   which the Court found to be contrary to the principles of foreseeability and legal certainty.   In addition, despite the near-fatal poisoning of Mr Navalnyy in August 2020, the national courts, when   ordering his detention and imprisonment, had made no attempt to consider the fears he expressed   for his health and life, and had done nothing to undertake any kind of risk-assessment or consider   preventive options, including non-custodial or enhanced protective arrangements. The authorities   had also completely disregarded the Court’s judgment in respect of his 2014 conviction, had failed to   take into account the interim measure indicated by the Court and a decision and resolutions of the   Council of Europe Committee of Ministers urging for his release. Moreover, Mr Navalnyy had been   simultaneously subjected to a combination of several forms of ill-treatment during his detention   which, taken together, reflected a pattern of disregard for his health, well-being and dignity, and   amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.   A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link).   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any   party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers   whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the   referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksey Anatolyevich Navalnyy, was a Russian national who was born in 1976 and died   in a Russian penal colony in 2024. He was a political activist and opposition leader. He was also the   founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, which carried out and published investigations into   alleged corruption by high-ranking Russian government officials.   On 30 December 2014 Mr Navalnyy, together with his brother, was found guilty of commercial fraud   and money laundering for which he was given a suspended sentence of three and a half years,   contingent on his completing five years of probation. The suspended sentence was upheld upon   appeal. In 2017, the probation was extended by one year, until 30 December 2020, on the grounds   that he had been convicted of three administrative offences in 2017 relating to his involvement in   public demonstrations.   Following the European Court’s judgment Navalnyye v. Russia (no. 101/15) of 17 October 2017, the   Russian Supreme Court reopened the criminal proceedings but disagreed with the Court’s findings of   violations of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention; it held that the national courts had correctly   established the Navalnyy brothers’ guilt and that the proceedings had been adversarial and fair.   Mr Navalnyy’s suspended sentence remained in force.   On 20 August 2020, a few months before the end of his probation, Mr Navalnyy suddenly fell ill and   lost consciousness on an internal flight. On life support, he was flown by private plane to Berlin, where   he remained in hospital for a month, before undergoing outpatient treatment at the same hospital   until mid-January 2021. It was reported that he had been exposed to a chemical nerve agent from the   Novichok group of substances, prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention.   Just before the end of December 2020  and of his six-year probation , the FSIN issued a public   statement that Mr Navalnyy had failed to report regularly to his local FSIN office and summonsed him.   The following day, they put his name on their list of wanted persons, ordered his arrest, and lodged   an application for his suspended sentence to be activated.   On 13 January 2021 Mr Navalnyy announced that he would return to Russia on 17 January 2021.   Although the FSIN issued a public statement that he would be detained upon arrival to face sentence-   activation proceedings, he flew back and was immediately arrested. The next day, following a non-   public hearing held at the police station allegedly without his being able to consult his counsel   privately, his detention was ordered. He lodged application no. 4743/21 with the European Court and   requested an interim measure for his immediate release.   Mr Navalnyy’s suspended sentence was activated on 2 February 2021 for failing to comply with his   probation conditions. The appellate court subsequently rejected Mr Navalnyy’s allegations that his life   was in danger and that the authorities’ wish to re-activate the suspended sentence was politically   motivated.   On 16 February 2021, the European Court allowed Mr Navalnyy’s request for an interim measure   under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and indicated to the Russian Government that they should release   him immediately, to no avail. A decision and resolutions of the Council of Europe Committee of   Ministers urging for his release also went without effect.   Between 18 January 2021 and 14 June 2022, Mr Navalnyy was held in several different – and at times   undisclosed – places. He was held in particular at penal colony IK-2 in the Vladimir Region, where,   among other alleged inadequate conditions, his head was shaved, he was kept under constant video   surveillance, and deprived of sleep through hourly or two-hourly security checks.   Suffering from severe back pain since February 2021  resulting from acute degenerative disease of   the lumbosacral region of the spine with herniated discs and protrusions  Mr Navalnyy went on   hunger strike from 31 March-23 April 2021 in an effort to be allowed to see an independent neurology   specialist. On 24 March and 14 April 2021 he underwent examinations in a civilian hospital and was   2 prescribed treatment. On 23 April 2021 he agreed to follow the treatment prescribed by the civilian   doctors and ended his hunger strike.   On 6 June 2023, in its judgment Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 3) concerning the refusal of the Russian   authorities to open criminal proceedings into Mr Navalnyy’s alleged poisoning in August 2020, the   Court found a procedural violation of Article 2 (right to life/effective investigation). The inquiry   conducted by the national authorities had, amongst other things, failed to explore the allegations of   a possible political motive for the attempted murder and of the possible involvement or collusion of   State agents; moreover, it had not followed up on the reported use of a substance identified as a   chemical weapon – a chemical nerve agent belonging to the Novichok group of substances - prohibited   by international and Russian law.   On 16 February 2024, Mr Navalnyy died in a high-security penal colony IK-3 in the Russian Arctic. The   Court’s case-file contained no information as to the cause of death.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Navalnyy complained that his detention   following the activation of the suspended sentence was unlawful on account of its causal connection   with the criminal conviction that had been found by the European Court to be in breach of several   Articles of the Convention in 2017 and also that his detention pending the outcome of the proceedings   concerning the activation of his suspended sentence had no legal basis in domestic law and was   arbitrary. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 4   (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), 6 (right to a fair trial), 18 (limitation   on use of restrictions on rights), and 34 (right of individual petition), Mr Navalnyy complained of a   serious and immediate danger to his life posed by his detention and imprisonment; of poor detention   conditions; of inadequate medical assistance; of insufficient procedural guarantees relating to his   detention; of allegedly unfair proceedings concerning the activation of his suspended sentence; of an   alleged ulterior purpose behind his arrest, detention and activation of his suspended sentence; and of   alleged hindrances to his right of individual application, including by non-compliance with the interim   measure ordered by the Court.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 January 2021 and   20 July 2021. Following Mr Navalnyy’s death, the Court accepted that his widow, Yulia Borisovna   Navalnaya, pursue the applications on his behalf.   As the applications concerned a related sequence of events and circumstances, the Court examined   them jointly in a single judgment.   The Court’s procedure for processing of applications against Russia can be found here.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece), President,   Peeter Roosma (Estonia),   Darian Pavli (Albania),   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh (Ireland),   Mateja Đurović (Serbia),   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat (Andorra),   Vasilka Sancin (Slovenia),   and also Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar.   3 Decision of the Court   The Court established that it had jurisdiction to deal with the applications in the case as they   concerned facts that had occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which Russia ceased to be   a contracting Party to the European Convention and, due to the “continuous” effect of the detention   order, extended beyond that date.   Article 5 § 1   In Navalnyye v. Russia the Court had already found that Mr Navalnyy’s criminal conviction of   30 December 2014, which formed the basis for his detention after 2 February 2021, had been flawed   with arbitrariness which had undermined the fairness of the criminal proceedings in a fundamental   way and that the courts’ interpretation of the criminal law had been unforeseeable, violating his rights   under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention. The   Court found that the profound arbitrariness identified under Article 6 in Navalnyye reached the   threshold of a flagrant denial of justice. Given the clear causal link to that conviction and the findings   under Articles 6 and 7 in Navalnyye, the Court found that Mr Navalnyy’s imprisonment after   2 February 2021 was therefore not “lawful” and amounted to a violation of Article 5 § 1 (a) in that   regard.   Regarding the previous period of detention from 17 January to 2 February 2021, the national courts   had cited several legal provisions as the statutory basis for Mr Navalnyy’s detention pending the   hearing on the activation of his suspended sentence. However, those provisions were tailored to other   specific scenarios – none of which was applicable to Mr Navalnyy’s situation. Nevertheless, the   national courts had found that they could be applied “by analogy” to his situation, thereby introducing   an interpretation in their case-law that ran counter to the wording of the provisions. The Court found   that the application by analogy of such provisions was contrary to the principle of legal certainty and   fell short of the Convention standard of lawfulness. There had therefore been a violation of   Article 5 § 1 in respect of that period of detention also.   Article 2   In Navalnyy (no. 3) the Court had found that the incident of 20 August 2020 had constituted a serious   and immediate risk to the applicant’s life. The Court drew inferences from the failure to conduct a   Convention-compliant investigation and found that a real and immediate risk to Mr Navalnyy’s life   had still persisted at the moment of his return to Russia and his arrest on 17 January 2021, and had   continued thereafter. Mr Navalnyy had substantiated before the domestic courts his claim that his   placement in detention would put his life at risk. In the light of that risk, the national courts should   have addressed its source, its level and immediacy, and the range of preventive options, including   non-custodial or enhanced protective arrangements. However, they had not carried out any risk   assessment and had simply dismissed Mr Navalnyy’s arguments. They had demonstrated disregard of   the Court’s judgment in respect of his 2014 conviction. They had also failed to take into account the   interim measure indicated by the Court, as well as the decision and resolutions of the Council of   Europe Committee of Ministers urging for his release. They had accordingly made no attempt to fulfil   their duty (“positive obligation”) under Article 2 to protect him. There had therefore been a violation   in this respect.   Article 3   The Court noted that Mr Navalnyy had received a diagnosis from the detention facility’s medical   service and had been prescribed treatment. After a differing medical opinion by an independent   specialist – and in the light of his hunger strike and his categorical refusal to follow the prescribed   treatment – the authorities had arranged a further test and had sought a further opinion from external   medical specialists. Mr Navalnyy had accepted the treatment prescribed by those specialists. Although   the overall time frame was not unreasonable, the Court took into account the fact that he must have   4 endured constant and considerable pain for a prolonged period of time, considering his diagnosis.   Given his recent serious illness and his deep conviction that the State had been responsible for his   poisoning, his anxiety about his health, his distrust of the detention facility’s medical staff and his wish   to have access to independent medical care were understandable. The combination of these factors   had rendered Mr Navalnyy particularly vulnerable.   Regarding his allegations of sleep deprivation, the night-time checks had been conducted because the   prison authorities had classified the applicant as a flight risk, finding that he had repeatedly and   publicly declared his intention to escape. The Court considered that that decision had been arbitrary,   as Mr Navalnyy’s words had clearly been meant as a joke. Moreover, the Government had failed to   explain why two-hourly physical checks were necessary, given that his cell had been under continuous   video surveillance. The Court concluded that he had been subjected to sleep deprivation for 39 days   on an arbitrary basis, even during his hunger strike and when suffering from back pain.   Regarding the shaving of his hair, the Court noted that the prison rules in force at the time required   convicts to have short hair, that is to say, no longer than 2 cm. There was nothing to show that there   had been any legal basis, medical necessity, or valid justification for shaving off all his hair, which might   have made him feel inferior and humiliated.   All-in-all, the Court concluded that Mr Navalnyy had been simultaneously subjected to a combination   of several forms of ill-treatment. These aspects of his detention, taken together, reflected a pattern   of disregard for the applicant’s health, well-being and dignity, and amounted to inhuman and   degrading treatment. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In view of   that finding, the Court did not examine the remaining issues raised under this Article.   Articles 5 § 4 and 6   In view of its previous findings in the case, the Court considered that there was no need to give a   separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of Mr Navalnyy’s complaints under these Articles.   Article 18   Although Mr Navalnyy had complained that the ulterior purpose of his arrest and detention and the   activation of his suspended sentence had been to punish him for his political activities, he had not   maintained that complaint in his observations to the Court. Given that, and the nature of the violations   already found, the Court struck this complaint out of its list.   Article 34   The Court noted that, despite the Court’s interim measure indicated to the Russian Government,   Mr Navalnyy had remained in detention until his death three years later. The Government had not   shown that there was any objective impediment to compliance with the interim measure; it was clear   that the reason was their refusal to accept its legitimacy. The Court found that the Russian State had   failed to comply with its obligations under this Article of the Convention.   In view of that finding, the Court saw no need to examine the remaining issue of whether, by imposing   restrictions on Mr Navalnyy’s communications with his lawyers, Russia had hindered the exercise of   his right of individual application.   Rule 39 of the Rules of Court   In view of Mr Navalnyy’s death, the interim measure previously indicated in this application ceased to   have any basis.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Russia was to pay the applicant 26,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage. No claim had been made for costs or expenses, so no award was made under this head.   5 The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Claire Windsor (tel : + 33 3 88 41 24 01)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   6