18089/20;18166/20;18180/20;18185/20;18188/20;18193/20;18197/20;18199/20;18201/20;18232/20;18233/20;18235/20;19482/20;19485/20;20477/20;26232/20;26776/20;26782/20

WyrokETPCz2022-11-10ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD001808920

Analiza orzeczenia

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

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy brak strony oskarżającej w postępowaniach o wykroczenia administracyjne, które wchodzą w zakres "zarzutu karnego" z art. 6 Konwencji, narusza zasadę bezstronności trybunału z art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji? Dodatkowo, czy miały miejsce naruszenia art. 5 ust. 1 i art. 11 ust. 2 Konwencji w związku z zatrzymaniami i karami administracyjnymi podczas zgromadzeń publicznych?
Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził, że krajowe przepisy proceduralne, które zezwalają organom sądowym na rozpatrywanie spraw o wykroczenia administracyjne (objętych karnym aspektem art. 6 Konwencji) bez udziału strony oskarżającej, są niezgodne z zasadą obiektywnej bezstronności wynikającą z art. 6 Konwencji. Trybunał oparł się na swojej ugruntowanej linii orzeczniczej, w szczególności na sprawie Karelin przeciwko Rosji, która oceniła, że w takich okolicznościach sąd pełni jednocześnie rolę oskarżyciela i sędziego, co narusza wymóg bezstronności. W odniesieniu do pozostałych skarg, Trybunał uznał, że ujawniają one naruszenia Konwencji w świetle ugruntowanego orzecznictwa dotyczącego nieproporcjonalnych środków wobec uczestników zgromadzeń publicznych (Frumkin) oraz bezprawnego aresztu administracyjnego (Tsvetkova and Others).
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący zostali ukarani grzywnami administracyjnymi za udział w zgromadzeniach publicznych w Moskwie i Rostowie-on-Don w 2019 roku, często w związku z protestami dotyczącymi wyborów do Mosgordumy lub w wsparciu Ivana Golunova. Wszyscy skarżący podnosili brak bezstronności trybunału w postępowaniach o wykroczenia administracyjne, wynikający z braku strony oskarżającej. Dodatkowo, wielu skarżących skarżyło się na bezprawne pozbawienie wolności (zatrzymanie przekraczające 3 godziny lub bez podstawy prawnej) oraz nieproporcjonalne środki zastosowane wobec nich jako uczestników zgromadzeń.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał decyduje o połączeniu skarg. Uznaje skargi dotyczące braku bezstronności trybunału w postępowaniach o wykroczenia administracyjne oraz inne skargi na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa za dopuszczalne. Uznaje, że nie jest konieczne odrębne rozpatrywanie dalszych skarg dotyczących nierzetelności postępowań administracyjnych w niektórych sprawach. Stwierdza naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji w zakresie braku bezstronności trybunału. Stwierdza naruszenie Konwencji w odniesieniu do pozostałych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa. Zasądza od pozwanego państwa na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem zadośćuczynienia, płatne w ciągu trzech miesięcy, wraz z odsetkami.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

THIRD SECTION CASE OF MALTYZOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 18089/20 and 17 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 November 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Maltyzov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022, 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 lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6.  The applicants complained of the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” 7.  The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 51-57, 20 September 2016, with further references). In that case the Court assessed the national rules of administrative procedure and concluded that the statutory requirements allowing for the national judicial authorities to consider an administrative offence case which falls within the ambit of Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal limb, in the absence of a prosecuting authority, was incompatible with the principle of objective impartiality set out in Article 6 of the Convention. 8.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, including having studied the compliance with the six-month period under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question and concluded that it should be exceptionally considered to have been suspended for three calendar months in total whenever it either started to run or was due to expire at any time between 16 March and 15 June 2020), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.  The 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. 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 Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 81-142, 5 January 2016, as regards disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful administrative arrest. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.  As regards the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about unfairness of proceedings, submitted by the applicants in applications nos. 18089/20, 18180/20, 18188/20, 18197/20, 18199/20, 18232/20, 18233/20, 18235/20, 19482/20, 19485/20, 20477/20, 26232/20, 26776/20 and 26782/20, the Court, having reached the conclusion about the lack of impartiality of the tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 9 above), does not consider it necessary to examine them separately. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 14.  The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately further complaints in applications nos. 18089/20, 18180/20, 18188/20, 18197/20, 18199/20, 18232/20, 18233/20, 18235/20, 19482/20, 19485/20, 20477/20, 26232/20, 26776/20 and 26782/20 about unfair administrative-offence proceedings; Holds that the applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under 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 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     18089/20 30/03/2020 Denis Germanovich MALTYZOV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Vilnius fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 06/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 06/11/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     18166/20 11/03/2020 Alik Mikhaylovich SHARAPOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 18/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 18/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     18180/20 11/03/2020 Leonid Mikhaylovich MARIN Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 12/06/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     18185/20 11/03/2020 Nikolay Nikolayevich SKOROKHODOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court on 16/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     18188/20 11/03/2020 Sergey Dmitriyevich MAKAROV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 20,000 Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;    Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 20,000/ Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     18193/20 11/03/2020 Yelena Aleksandrovna MOZGOVAYA Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 12/06/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     18197/20 11/03/2020 Yevgeniy Dmitriyevich SOKOL Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 18/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 18/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     18199/20 11/03/2020 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich CHULKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 16/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/12/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900     18201/20 11/03/2020 Vladimir Borisovich SAVENKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 20/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   18232/20 19/03/2020 Anton Andreyevich TARAKANOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   18233/20 19/03/2020 Nadezhda Borisovna SUFTINA Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 02/10/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   18235/20 19/03/2020 Georgiy Viktorovich LOBANOV Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 08/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 08/10/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   19482/20 23/03/2020 Nikolay Vladimirovich ZIMIREV Molokanova Tatyana Valeryevna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 10/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detained for more than 3 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 24/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   19485/20 16/03/2020 Yuriy Vladimirovich MANOKHIN Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow fine of RUB 10,000 Moscow City Court on 16/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Moscow City Court on 16/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   20477/20 15/04/2020 Aleksey Artemovich GEVORKYAN Gilmanov Mansur Idrisovich Podolsk fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court on 18/11/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 03/08/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 03/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 18/11/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   26232/20 29/03/2020 Oksana Sergeyevna ZAVGORODNYAYA Gak Irina Vladimirovna Rostov-on-Don fine of RUB 10,000 Rostov Regional Court on 27/09/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Arrest and detention on 10/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Rostov-on-Don in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 10,000/ Rostov Regional Court on 27/09/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   26776/20 02/04/2020 Albert Radistovich DAVYDOV Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 10/08/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 5 of CAO for participation on 10/08/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 04/10/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   26782/20 02/04/2020 Stanislav Sergeyevich TURUSOV Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna Moscow fine of RUB 15,000 Moscow City Court on 02/10/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing the record of administrative offence;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 27/07/2019 in Moscow in manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma/ administrative fine of RUB 15,000/ Moscow City Court on 02/10/2019 (appeal decision). 3,900   [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