003-7384874-10096915

WyrokETPCz2022-07-12

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy skazanie skarżącej za czyny, które nie stanowiły przestępstwa w momencie ich popełnienia, naruszyło zasadę nullum crimen sine lege z art. 7 Konwencji?
Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 7 Konwencji, ponieważ skarżąca została skazana za czyny "fikcyjnej rejestracji miejsca zamieszkania", które miały miejsce przed 3 stycznia 2014 r., czyli przed wprowadzeniem nowego prawa kryminalizującego takie działania. Zastosowanie prawa karnego z mocą wsteczną na niekorzyść oskarżonego jest sprzeczne z zasadą nullum crimen sine lege, która stanowi fundamentalny element prawa do rzetelnego procesu i ochrony przed arbitralnym ściganiem.
Stan faktyczny
Tatyana Mikhaylovna Kotlyar, rosyjska obrończyni praw człowieka, fałszywie zarejestrowała setki cudzoziemców w swoim mieszkaniu, aby pomóc im w ubieganiu się o obywatelstwo rosyjskie, mimo że tam nie mieszkali. Uważała to za formę obywatelskiego nieposłuszeństwa mającą na celu zwrócenie uwagi na problem mieszkaniowy przesiedleńców. Została dwukrotnie skazana na podstawie nowego prawa wprowadzonego w styczniu 2014 roku.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Stwierdza naruszenie art. 7 Konwencji w związku ze skazaniem skarżącej za czyny "fikcyjnej rejestracji miejsca zamieszkania" popełnione przed 3 stycznia 2014 r. Zasądza zadośćuczynienie za szkodę niemajątkową w wysokości 6 000 EUR. Odrzuca roszczenie o zwrot kosztów i wydatków.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 242 (2022)   12.07.2022   Judgments of 12 July 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four judgments1:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can   be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Kotlyar v. Russia (application no. 38825/16)   The applicant, Tatyana Mikhaylovna Kotlyar, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in   Obninsk, Kaluga Region, Russia. She is a human-rights defender, providing legal advice and social   assistance to migrants from other republics of the former Soviet Union.   The case concerns the applicant’s prosecution under a new law introduced in January 2014 for   having falsely registered her flat as the place of residence of hundreds of foreign nationals – who   were not actually living there – so that they could apply for Russian citizenship. She submitted that   her actions were a form of civil disobedience to raise awareness about the urgent problem of   housing people who resettled in Russia. She was convicted twice, while another set of proceedings   against her were discontinued.   Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the   applicant complains that she was tried for acts that did not constitute a criminal offence at the time   at which they had been committed.   Also relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, she alleges that the   criminal proceedings against her were intended to stifle her standing up for migrants’ rights and   expressing an opinion on a systemic social problem.   Violation of Article 7 on account of the applicant’s conviction for the acts of “fictitious residence   registration” carried out before 3 January 2014   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 6,000 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: the Court rejected the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses   Krivtsova v. Russia (no. 35802/16)*   The applicant, Nina Krivtsova, is a Russian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Volgograd,   Russia.   The case concerns the voiding of the applicant’s title to a plot of land, without compensation,   following a decision handed down on appeal by the Volgograd Regional Court on 7 May 2015.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s   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. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   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.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complains of a failure   to respect the principle of legal certainty in that two decisions issued by the courts were   inconsistent. Specifically, she argues that the decision of 7 May 2015 contradicted a decision handed   down on 11 July 2006 (and upheld on 28 August 2006) which had become res judicata.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant   complains that she was deprived of her land without compensation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: EUR 36,400   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000   costs and expenses: EUR 2,800   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. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   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)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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.   2

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 16.07.2026. · Źródło