41806/21;41943/21;46762/21;47462/21;47467/21;48918/21;48958/21;48984/21;49505/21;51181/21;51758/21;52086/21;54265/21;54266/21;54828/21;54877/21;54884/21;54890/21;54898/21;54902/21
WyrokETPCz2024-03-28ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0328JUD004180621
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 tym aresztowania i skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w prawo do wolności zgromadzeń oraz naruszały prawo do wolności i bezpieczeństwa osobistego oraz prawo do rzetelnego procesu sądowego?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził, że ingerencje w wolność zgromadzeń skarżących nie były „konieczne w społeczeństwie demokratycznym”, odwołując się do ugruntowanego orzecznictwa w podobnych sprawach. W odniesieniu do innych skarg, Trybunał uznał, że naruszenia Konwencji miały miejsce w świetle swojego orzecznictwa dotyczącego bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności oraz braku strony oskarżającej w postępowaniach o wykroczenia administracyjne. Trybunał miał jurysdykcję, ponieważ fakty miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r., kiedy Federacja Rosyjska przestała być stroną Konwencji.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli organizatorami lub uczestnikami zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, w tym wieców „Free Navalnyy” i innych politycznych demonstracji, które odbyły się głównie w styczniu i lutym 2021 roku. W związku z tymi wydarzeniami zostali zatrzymani i skazani za wykroczenia administracyjne, takie jak naruszenie przepisów o zgromadzeniach publicznych. Nałożone kary obejmowały grzywny (od 10 000 do 20 000 RUB), zatrzymania (od kilku godzin do 3 dni) lub prace społeczne (30 godzin). Skarżący skarżyli się na nieproporcjonalne środki podjęte przeciwko nim oraz na brak bezstronności sądów krajowych.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: decyduje o połączeniu skarg; uznaje, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia skarg dotyczących faktów, które miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r.; uznaje skargi na podstawie art. 11 Konwencji oraz inne skargi na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału za dopuszczalne; stwierdza, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego rozpatrywania pozostałych skarg na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji; stwierdza naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji; stwierdza naruszenie Konwencji w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału; zasądza od pozwanego państwa na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem zadośćuczynienia, płatne w ciągu trzech miesięcy, wraz z odsetkami ustawowymi w przypadku opóźnienia.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KAMENTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 41806/21 and 19 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 Kamentsev 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. 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.
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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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]
41806/21
02/08/2021
Anton Vladimirovich KAMENTSEV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Rostov-on-Don
31/01/2021
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
detention for 3 days
Rostov Regional Court
25/02/2021
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 10.20 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
41943/21
02/08/2021
Anton Aleksandrovich OSIPENKO Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Voronezh
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Voronezh Regional Court
25/02/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
46762/21
10/09/2021
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SOLOMONIDIN Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Penza
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community work
Penza Regional Court
18/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
47462/21
04/09/2021
Damir Maratovich GILYAZOV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Political rally
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
03/06/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
47467/21
04/09/2021
Daniil Olegovich LYUBOV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Political rally
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
03/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.40 p.m. until 3.40 p.m. on 31/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
48918/21
24/09/2021
Grigoriy Viktorovich NEDAYEV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.50 a.m. until 8 p.m. on 31/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
48958/21
24/09/2021
Andrey Alekseyevich BADYANOV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Omsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Omsk Regional Court
06/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
48984/21
24/09/2021
Anna Aleksandrovna LUGOVAYA Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Kaliningrad
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 17,000
Kaliningrad Regional Court
30/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.45 a.m. to 4.45 p.m. on 31/01/2021.
4,000
49505/21
01/10/2021
Igor Vladimirovich DIL Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
06/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 11.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until 6 a.m. on 03/02/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
51181/21
08/10/2021
Marina Dmitriyevna GAYEVA Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Omsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Omsk Regional Court
13/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 5 p.m. on 31/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
51758/21
15/10/2021
Yuliya Ivanovna ZHILYAKOVA Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Staryy Oskol, Belgorod Region
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Belgorod Regional Court
19/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12.45 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
52086/21
29/09/2021
Andrey Aleksandrovich DEMYANOV Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
25/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
54265/21
15/10/2021
Valeriy Igorevich BUSAROV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally to support Sergey Furgal and Nikolay Platoshkin
Moscow
25/07/2020
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
28/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
54266/21
15/10/2021
Viktor Sergeyevich MALEYEV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Moscow
02/02/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 12 p.m. until 4.30 p.m. on 02/02/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
54828/21
29/10/2021
Aleksandr Tarasovich ZAGIBALOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Irkutsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Irkutsk Regional Court
12/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
54877/21
29/10/2021
Tatyana Yuryevna MOKIYENKO Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
St Petersburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2
§ 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
11/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on 31/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
54884/21
29/10/2021
Sergey Valentinovich GLYADYAYEV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Omsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Omsk Regional Court
11/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
54890/21
29/10/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich TEREBKOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally "Free Navalnyy"
Omsk
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Omsk Regional Court
11/05/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
54898/21
29/10/2021
Vladislav Vladimirovich KUZMIN Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Yekaterinburg
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
11/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report on 31/01/2021;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
54902/21
29/10/2021
Aleksey Gennadyevich SEMENOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Rally “Free Navalnyy”
Yaroslavl
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Yaroslavl Regional Court
11/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 1.45 p.m. until 6 p.m. on 31/01/2021,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
[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