13238/21;15097/21;15104/21;20155/21;20303/21;20406/21;20652/21;20669/21;20775/21;20778/21;21351/21;21567/21;21988/21;22672/21;24176/21;24727/21;25898/21;25930/21;39838/21
WyrokETPCz2024-03-14ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0314JUD001323821
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy środki podjęte przez władze rosyjskie przeciwko organizatorom i uczestnikom zgromadzeń publicznych, w tym ich rozproszenie, aresztowanie i skazanie za wykroczenia administracyjne, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w prawo do wolności zgromadzeń oraz czy naruszyły inne prawa konwencyjne, takie jak prawo do wolności i bezpieczeństwa osobistego oraz prawo do rzetelnego procesu?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził, że ingerencje w wolność zgromadzeń skarżących nie były „konieczne w społeczeństwie demokratycznym”, odwołując się do ugruntowanego orzecznictwa dotyczącego wolności zgromadzeń i proporcjonalności ingerencji. W odniesieniu do innych skarg, Trybunał uznał, że naruszenia Konwencji miały miejsce w świetle wcześniejszych wyroków dotyczących bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności uczestników zgromadzeń oraz braku bezstronności sądów w postępowaniach administracyjnych z powodu braku strony oskarżającej. Trybunał nie znalazł żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które mogłyby skłonić go do odmiennego wniosku w kwestii dopuszczalności i zasadności tych skarg.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli organizatorami lub uczestnikami zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, które miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r. Władze rosyjskie podjęły wobec nich środki, takie jak rozproszenie zgromadzeń, aresztowanie, a następnie skazanie za wykroczenia administracyjne, często związane z naruszeniem przepisów dotyczących zgromadzeń. Niektórzy skarżący byli również bezprawnie zatrzymywani, a ich postępowania administracyjne charakteryzowały się brakiem bezstronności sądu.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie:
- Decyduje o połączeniu skarg.
- Stwierdza, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia tych skarg, ponieważ dotyczą one faktów, które miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r.
- Uznaje skargi na podstawie art. 11 Konwencji oraz inne skargi na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału, zgodnie z załączoną tabelą, za dopuszczalne.
- Decyduje, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego rozpatrywania innych aspektów skarg podniesionych przez niektórych skarżących na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji.
- Stwierdza naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji.
- Stwierdza naruszenie Konwencji w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału (zob. załączona tabela).
- Zasądza od państwa pozwanego na rzecz skarżących, w terminie trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, które mają być przeliczone na walutę państwa pozwanego według kursu obowiązującego w dniu zapłaty, wraz z odsetkami za zwłokę.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF DANKOVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 13238/21 and 18 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 March 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dankovskaya and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 February 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction
6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention. Some applicants also invoked Article 10, however, this complaint falls to be examined under Article 11 of the Convention.
8. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).
9. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.
13. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. Some applicants raised additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;
Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine the other aspects of the complaints raised by some applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;
Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
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 charges
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Court Name
Date
Other complaints under well-established case‑law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
13238/21
01/03/2021
Angela Nikolayevna DANKOVSKAYA Ushakov Timofey Borisovich
Kokoshkino
Opposition rally
Moscow
22/06/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
26/10/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention- arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 22/06/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record only drawn up on 06/07/2020);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
15097/21
24/02/2021
Damir Shamilevich DAVLETBAYEV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against the Constitutional amendments
Moscow
15/07/2020
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
26/11/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
15104/21
25/02/2021
Grigoriy Aleksandrovich GRIBENKO Ivanets Vyacheslav Sergeyevich
Tbilisi, Georgia
Opposition rally
Irkutsk
01/08/2020
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20 000
Irkutsk Regional Court
27/10/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
20155/21
23/03/2021
Sergey Alekseyevich PAVLOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against the constitutional amendments
Moscow
15/07/2020
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
26/10/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence
4,000
20303/21
14/03/2021
Ivan Igorevich SHCHEPIN Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Rally in support of S. Furgal
Krasnoyarsk
08/08/2020
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
24/09/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention between 08/08/2020 and 10/08/2020 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been complied on 08/08/2020;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
20406/21
26/03/2021
Larisa Sergeyevna TOLMACHEVA Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Opposition rally
Krasnoyarsk
15/08/2020
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
01/10/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/08/2020, for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of an administrative offence (such record drawn up on 17/08/2020); failure to draw up records of administrative arrest and escorting;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
20652/21
20/03/2021
Darya Sergeyevna MERNENKO Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Event against the increase of public transportation tariffs
St-Petersburg
19/11/2019
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Saint Petersburg City Court
06/10/2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
20669/21
25/03/2021
Shamil Azatovich ALIAKBEROV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally against the constitutional amendments
Moscow
15/07/2020
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
26/10/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 15/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence (such record compiled only on 20/07/2020);
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
20775/21
22/03/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich KHALAYEV Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Rally in support of S. Furgal
Vladivostok
19/07/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Primorye Regional Court
13/10/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 19/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
20778/21
22/03/2021
Anastasiya Yuryevna KAPITONOVA Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Rally in support of
S. Furgal
Vladivostok
08/08/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Primorye Regional Court
03/11/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 08/08/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
21351/21
06/04/2021
Andrey Eduardovich MAKSIMKIN Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Saransk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic
10/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
21567/21
08/04/2021
Aleksey Vladimirovich LITVINENKO Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
20/01/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 03/08/2019, for the purpose of drawing up an offence record (such record only drawn up
on 06/08/2019)
4,000
21988/21
07/04/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich SEMCHENKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of arrested
N. Platoshkin and S. Furgal
Moscow
25/07/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
18/01/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest and escorting to a police station, detention on 25/07/2020 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
22672/21
29/03/2021
Bilyal Pavlovich KOTKIN Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
02/10/2020
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence
4,000
24176/21
16/04/2021
Mikhail Sergeyevich REVYAKIN Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally in support of S. Furgal
Khabarovsk
19/12/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
28/01/2021
3,500
24727/21
29/03/2021
Ilya Sergeyevich FROLOV Bayeva Aleksandra Nikolayevna
Moscow
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Volgograd
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of
RUB 10,000
Volgograd Regional Court
25/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
25898/21
07/05/2021
Anton Yuryevich ZHIVIN Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of
10 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
25930/21
07/05/2021
Denis Vladimirovich TKHAROVSKIY Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 15 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station and detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
39838/21
29/07/2021
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich YANIN Eysmont Mariya Olegovna
Moscow
Rally in support of A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
administrative detention of 10 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest; escorting to a police station, detention between 31/01/2021 and 01/02/2021 as administrative suspect, pending trial, after the offence record had been compiled;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło