2097/22;2108/22;2172/22;2212/22;2545/22;2581/22;2612/22;2861/22;2871/22;2935/22;2995/22;3014/22;3139/22;3183/22;3236/22;3312/22;13158/22;15890/22;22650/22;23362/22;23582/22;23593/22;25470/22;31286/22;31289/22
WyrokETPCz2024-03-28ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0328JUD000209722
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy środki podjęte przeciwko organizatorom i uczestnikom zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, w tym aresztowania i skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w prawo do wolności zgromadzeń (art. 11 Konwencji) oraz naruszały inne prawa konwencyjne, takie jak prawo do wolności i bezpieczeństwa osobistego (art. 5) i prawo do rzetelnego procesu (art. 6)?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził, że ingerencje w wolność zgromadzeń skarżących nie były „konieczne w społeczeństwie demokratycznym”, odwołując się do ugruntowanego orzecznictwa w podobnych sprawach dotyczących Rosji. W odniesieniu do innych skarg, Trybunał uznał, że naruszenia art. 5 ust. 1 (bezprawne pozbawienie wolności), art. 6 ust. 1 (brak bezstronności sądu administracyjnego, brak strony oskarżającej) oraz art. 2 Protokołu nr 7 (opóźnione rozpatrzenie odwołania) również miały miejsce, opierając się na wcześniejszych wyrokach, które ustaliły te same kwestie prawne. Trybunał zastosował podejście komitetowe, uznając, że fakty i argumenty przedstawione w niniejszej sprawie nie uzasadniają odmiennego wniosku niż w jego ugruntowanym orzecznictwie.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli organizatorami lub uczestnikami zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, w tym wieców „Free Navalnyy” i protestu przeciwko zmianom konstytucyjnym. W związku z tymi zgromadzeniami zostali zatrzymani, eskortowani na posterunki policji, a następnie skazani za wykroczenia administracyjne na kary grzywny lub aresztu. Skarżący zarzucali nieproporcjonalne środki podjęte przeciwko nim, bezprawne pozbawienie wolności oraz brak bezstronności sądów administracyjnych.Rozstrzygnięcie
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, jak określono w załączonej tabeli, za dopuszczalne, i stwierdza, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego rozpatrywania pozostałych skarg na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji;
Stwierdza, że skargi te ujawniają naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji;
Stwierdza, że doszło do naruszenia Konwencji i Protokołów do niej w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału (zob. załączona tabela);
Zasądza, że pozwane państwo ma zapłacić skarżącym, w ciągu trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, które zostaną przeliczone na walutę pozwanego państwa według kursu obowiązującego w dniu rozliczenia;
Zasądza, że od upływu wyżej wymienionych trzech miesięcy do dnia rozliczenia od powyższych kwot będą należne odsetki proste według stopy równej krańcowej stopie oprocentowania Europejskiego Banku Centralnego w okresie zwłoki powiększonej o trzy punkty procentowe.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 2097/22 and 24 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 March 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sokolov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 March 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 their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on 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 and its Protocols, 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 these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention and its Protocols 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; 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); Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of fairness of the administrative‑offence proceedings. In view of the findings 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 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 finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints 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 and the Protocols thereto 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 28 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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/ criminal 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]
2097/22
14/12/2021
Pavel Valeryevich SOKOLOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Krasnoyarsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
17/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2108/22
13/12/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich SHIRYAYEV Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
16/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
4,000
2172/22
10/12/2021
Artem Vitalyevich ANKUDIMOV Olimpiada Valentinovna Usanova
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
10/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2212/22
09/12/2021
Irina Nikolayevna SOKOVA Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
10/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 21/04/2021 until 22/04/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2545/22
20/12/2021
Andrey Yuryevich ILLARIONOV Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Antokhin
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
01/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2581/22
28/12/2021
Yegor Anatolyevich FILIMONOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
29/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2612/22
09/12/2021
Yekaterina Dmitriyevna MARKOVA Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
10/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2861/22
09/12/2021
Vadim Yevgenyevich SEROV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Volgograd
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Volgograd Regional Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2871/22
09/12/2021
Filipp Nikolayevich KOZLOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2935/22
21/12/2021
Nikolay Gennadyevich BAKHALKHANOV Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Krasnoyarsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
24/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2995/22
27/12/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich KUZIKOV Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Perm
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
05/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3014/22
27/12/2021
Svetlana Ruslanovna SHILO Yelena Yuryevna Pershakova
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention of 3 days
Moscow City Court
05/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3139/22
02/12/2021
Danila Andreyevich BARYSHNIKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Ufa
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic
02/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 21/04/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3183/22
11/12/2021
Lyubov Nikolayevna BORMOTOVA Sofya Zurabovna Sharangiya
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
03/06/2021
(final judgment served on the applicant on 11/06/2021)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3236/22
16/12/2021
Yegor Igorevich TORGOV Konstantin Mikhaylovich Zinovyev
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
16/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
3312/22
15/12/2021
Anatoliy Nikolayevich MIGUNOV Andrey Olegovich Valenkov
Nizhniy Novgorod
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
16/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
13158/22
02/02/2022
Nikita Vyacheslavovich GULYAYEV Darya Dmitriyevna Aksenova
Kolomna
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
03/08/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
15890/22
22/03/2022
Ilya Sergeyevich FESHCHENKO Darya Dmitriyevna Aksenova
Kolomna
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
11/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
22650/22
17/04/2022
Vasiliy Grigoryevich CHERKASOV
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
21/10/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
3,500
23362/22
20/04/2022
Konstantin Sergeyevich SOKOLOV
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/01/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
23582/22
15/04/2022
Igor Dmitriyevich RODIONOV
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
25/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
23593/22
14/04/2022
Karina Ashotovna TAMRAZYAN Darya Dmitriyevna Aksyenova
Kolomna
Protest against constitutional amendments
Moscow
15/07/2020
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
15/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 15/07/2020 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
25470/22
26/04/2022
Pavel Nikolayevich VIRGUSH Nataliya Andreyevna Baranova
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Novosibirsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Novosibirsk Regional Court
28/10/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 31/01/2021 for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
31286/22
18/05/2022
Petr Mikhaylovich SINITSYN Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov
Yekaterinburg
Anti-war protest
Yekaterinburg
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
detention of 9 days
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
03/03/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant was executed immediately, on account of the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal under the CAO
5,000
31289/22
18/05/2022
Olga Gennadyevna GREBENKINA Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov
Yekaterinburg
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Yekaterinburg
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
10/02/2022
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
[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