41710/21;41725/21;41740/21;41941/21;42050/21;42060/21;42091/21;42100/21;42102/21;42106/21;42108/21;42110/21;42123/21;42151/21;42400/21;42510/21;42579/21;42587/21;42588/21;43237/21;55895/21;55900/21;55912/21;56863/21;56916/21;57035/21;57108/21;57171/21;58278/21;58684/21
WyrokETPCz2024-05-14ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0514JUD004171021
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy środki zastosowane wobec organizatorów i uczestników zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, w tym aresztowania i skazania administracyjne, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w prawo do wolności zgromadzeń, a także naruszały 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', powołując się na swoje ugruntowane orzecznictwo dotyczące wolności zgromadzeń i proporcjonalności ingerencji. W odniesieniu do innych skarg, Trybunał uznał, że naruszenia Konwencji i Protokołów do niej wynikały z bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności, braku bezstronności sądu w postępowaniach administracyjnych oraz braku skutku zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego. Trybunał uznał, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego rozpatrywania pozostałych skarg na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji, biorąc pod uwagę już stwierdzone naruszenia.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli organizatorami lub uczestnikami zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, w tym wieców 'Wolny Nawalny'. W związku z tymi wydarzeniami zostali zatrzymani i skazani za wykroczenia administracyjne na podstawie Kodeksu Wykroczeń Administracyjnych (CAO), otrzymując kary grzywny lub aresztu administracyjnego. Skarżyli się na nieproporcjonalne środki, bezprawne pozbawienie wolności, brak bezstronności sądów krajowych oraz brak skutku zawieszającego odwołań od kar aresztu.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: połączył skargi; stwierdził, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia skarg; uznał skargi na podstawie art. 11 Konwencji oraz inne skargi na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa za dopuszczalne i stwierdził, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego badania pozostałych skarg na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji; stwierdził naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji; stwierdził naruszenie Konwencji i Protokołów do niej w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa; zasądził od pozwanego państwa na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem zadośćuczynienia, powiększone o odsetki.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KUZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 41710/21 and 29 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 May 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kuzin 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 11 April 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); Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; 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 in paragraphs 9, 10 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 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 14 May 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 offence
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]
41710/21
03/08/2021
Yuriy Anatolyevich KUZIN
Rally “Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 4 days
Moscow City Court
04/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 3.45 p.m. 31/01/2021 until 3.45 p.m. on 02/02/2021.
5,000
41725/21
31/07/2021
Denis Vladimirovich KURUSHIN Chashchilova Mariya Valeryevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
16/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.37 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 10.00 a.m. on 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.
5,000
41740/21
06/08/2021
Maksim Yevgenyevich DOMOZHIROV Kurochko Yelena Viktorovna
Vologda
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Vologda
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Vologda Regional Court
27/04/2021
3,500
41941/21
10/08/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich DMITRIYEV Polyakova Veronika Valeryevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
10/02/2021
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
42050/21
03/08/2021
Ilya Pavlovich SHAMOVSKIY Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
42060/21
03/08/2021
Konstantin Yuryevich MASLOV Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
42091/21
04/08/2021
Mikhail Aleksandrovich ALIYEV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 8 days
Moscow City Court
21/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 4 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021, when the applicant was taken to the Babushkinskiy District Court,
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
42100/21
04/08/2021
Yevgeniya Yuryevna MAYOROVA Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
04/02/2021
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
42102/21
04/08/2021
Marat Rashitovich NAFIKOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 15 days
Moscow City Court
09/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 1.40 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 9.40 p.m. on 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,
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
42106/21
03/08/2021
Dmitriy Sergeyevich TARASOV Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
42108/21
04/08/2021
Nikita Sergeyevich KARNAUKHOV Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
42110/21
04/08/2021
Ivan Anatolyevich LOBACHEV Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
08/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
42123/21
03/08/2021
Vladislav Aleksandrovich VETOKHIN Sirosh Fedor Yevgenyevich
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 5 days
Moscow City Court
05/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
5,000
42151/21
31/07/2021
Dmitriy Svyatoslavovich MAKAROVSKIY Chashchilova Mariya Valeryevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
42400/21
06/08/2021
Pavel Sergeyevich STRUNIN Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Chelyabinsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
detention for 9 days
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
09/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
42510/21
05/08/2021
Sergey Nikolayevich VERBITSKIY Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 8 days
Moscow City Court
04/02/2021
(decision served on the applicant on the following days)
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
42579/21
11/08/2021
Adelina Timeryanovna BATYRSHINA Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 4.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
42587/21
11/08/2021
Yelizaveta Sergeyevna YELISEYEVA Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
24/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 4.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
42588/21
11/08/2021
Valeriya Eduardovna NIKOLAYEVA Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
03/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 2 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 4.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021
4,000
43237/21
09/08/2021
Fedor Alekseyevich ZAKHAROV Eysmont Mariya Olegovna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
detention for 10 days
Moscow City Court
10/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 6.40 p.m. on 31/01/2021 until 4.50 p.m. on 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.
5,000
55895/21
29/10/2021
Vladislav Yuryevich RYBALKO Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
55900/21
29/10/2021
Anton Viktorovich SYASIN Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
17/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
55912/21
29/10/2021
Yelena Vitalyevna YELTSOVA Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
28/07/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
56863/21
15/11/2021
Tatyana Aleksandrovna POKROVSKAYA Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
56916/21
15/11/2021
Yuriy Ivanovich KUREYEV 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
05/07/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
57035/21
10/11/2021
Sergey Mikhaylovich TERTIYENKO 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
13/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
57108/21
07/10/2021
Yelizaveta Leonidovna ZAGORSKAYA Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Samara
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Samara Regional Court
08/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
57171/21
30/10/2021
Anastasiya Sergeyevna KASYANOVA Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kurgan
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
detention for 20 days
Kurgan Regional Court
01/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station after compiling an offence report from 8.10 p.m. on 21/04/2021 until 10.13 a.m. on 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,
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
58278/21
18/11/2021
Aleksey Igorevich KRIVOSHEIN Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
58684/21
15/11/2021
Mikhail Andreyevich PANFILOV Sharangiya Sofya Zurabovna
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. 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