43191/21;45710/21;45886/21;47509/21;47833/21;48934/21;49150/21;49272/21;49428/21;49437/21;51211/21;51498/21;51504/21;51701/21;51790/21;51936/21;52341/21;53163/21;53169/21;53174/21;57560/21;51290/22
WyrokETPCz2024-03-21ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0321JUD004319121
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy aresztowania i kary administracyjne nałożone na organizatorów i uczestników zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w prawo do wolności zgromadzeń (art. 11 Konwencji) oraz czy doszło do naruszenia prawa do wolności i bezpieczeństwa osobistego (art. 5 ust. 1) i prawa do rzetelnego procesu (art. 6 ust. 1) w związku z tymi wydarzeniami?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził, że środki podjęte przeciwko skarżącym, polegające na aresztowaniu i skazaniu za wykroczenia administracyjne w związku z udziałem lub organizacją zgromadzeń publicznych, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w ich prawo do wolności zgromadzeń, niezgodną z wymogiem „konieczności w społeczeństwie demokratycznym” z art. 11 Konwencji. Ponadto, w odniesieniu do niektórych skarżących, Trybunał uznał, że doszło do naruszenia art. 5 ust. 1 Konwencji z powodu bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności oraz art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji z powodu braku bezstronności trybunału w postępowaniach administracyjnych, powołując się na ugruntowane orzecznictwo w podobnych sprawach.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli organizatorami lub uczestnikami zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji, głównie w styczniu i marcu 2021 roku, a w jednym przypadku w marcu 2022 roku (protest przeciwko wojnie w Ukrainie). Zostali oni aresztowani i skazani za wykroczenia administracyjne, takie jak naruszenie przepisów dotyczących zgromadzeń publicznych (art. 20.2 § 5 lub § 6.1 Kodeksu Wykroczeń Administracyjnych) lub dyskredytowanie sił zbrojnych (art. 20.3.3 § 1 CAO). W wyniku tych działań nałożono na nich grzywny lub prace społeczne. Niektórzy skarżący byli również bezprawnie pozbawieni wolności.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie:
- Decyduje o połączeniu skarg.
- Uznaje, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia 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 i 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 (zob. załączona tabela).
- Zasądza od pozwanego państwa 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 ustawowymi za opóźnienie.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KIRSANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 43191/21 and 21 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 March 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kirsanov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 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. 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 the fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 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 21 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
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]
43191/21
11/08/2021
Ivan Nikolayevich KIRSANOV Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Kazan, Tatarstan Republic
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
17/02/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. on 23/01/2021 to 2 p.m. on 24/01/2021 for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record and bringing the applicant to court hearing, raised on appeal
4,000
45710/21
26/08/2021
Viktoriya Andreyevna KURBATOVA Zubarev Dmitriy Vladimirovich
Vladivostok
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Vladivostok
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Primorye Regional Court
20/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on 31/01/2021 for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Primorye Regional Court, 20/05/2021
4,000
45886/21
25/08/2021
Andrey Valentinovich ZELENOV Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich
Khabarovsk
Manifestation in support of Furgal and Navalnyy
Khabarovsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
18/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 3.20 on 23/01/2021 to 25/01/2021 for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record and bringing the applicant to court hearing, raised on appeal
4,000
47509/21
03/09/2021
Anton Aleksandrovich SUKHANOV Vertegel Feliks Yevgenyevich
Krasnodar
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Krasnodar
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
15/03/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Krasnodar Regional Court, 15/03/2021
3,500
47833/21
18/09/2021
Aleksandr Pavlovich SMIRNOV Nemanov Vladimir Sergeyevich
Moscow
Manifestation in support of Navlanyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
06/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 5.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to about 1.30 a.m. on 01/02/2021 for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 06/04/2021
4,000
48934/21
24/09/2021
Yelena Aleksandrovna PIROGOVA Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Staryy Oskol
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Belgorod Regional Court
29/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 12.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Belgorod Regional Court, 29/03/2021
4,000
49150/21
16/09/2021
Yuliya Sergeyevna DEMIDOVA Yatsenko Irina Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 12 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 9.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021 for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record and bringing the applicant to court hearing, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 16/03/2021
4,000
49272/21
22/09/2021
Aleksandr Vladimirovich VOLKOV Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
22/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 12.09 p.m. until unspecified time on 23/01/2021 (more than three hours) for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 22/04/2021
4,000
49428/21
01/10/2021
Igor Olegovich YERMACHENKOV Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Arkhangelsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Arkhangelsk Regional Court
09/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 09/04/2021
3,500
49437/21
01/10/2021
Artur Arturovich SIDOROV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Yaroslavl
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Yaroslavl Regional Court
08/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 12.20 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Yaroslavl Regional Court, 08/04/2021
4,000
51211/21
30/09/2021
Irada Nazimovna KAMINSKAYA Dubrovina Marina Alekseyevna
Novorossiysk
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Anapa, Krasnodar Region
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 12,000
Krasnodar Regional Court
31/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 1.10 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 31/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record and bringing the applicant to the court hearing, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Krasnodar Regional Court, 31/03/2021
4,000
51498/21
28/09/2021
Vladimir Vladimirovich KALASHNIKOV Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
20/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 2.10 p.m. to unspecified time on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 20/04/2021
4,000
51504/21
28/09/2021
Yuriy Vladimirovich ZAYTSEV Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Moscow
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
13/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 6.25 p.m. to unspecified time on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 13/05/2021
4,000
51701/21
05/10/2021
Maksim Yuryevich TARASOV Valenkov Andrey Olegovich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Nizhniy Novgorod
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
07/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 12.25 p.m. on 31/01/2021 to 3.30 p.m. on 01/02/2021 for the sole reason of drawing up an administrative offence record and bringing the applicant to the court hearing, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 07/04/2021
4,000
51790/21
15/10/2021
Anastasiya Igorevna RODIONOVA Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Saransk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia
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 - Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic, 28/04/2021
3,500
51936/21
15/10/2021
Yana Valeryevna FOMINA Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Kursk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Kursk Regional Court
27/04/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 2.55 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. on 23/01/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Kursk Regional Court, 27/04/2021
4,000
52341/21
01/10/2021
Darina Ruslanovna PRAZDNIKOVA Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Kazan
31/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic
21/04/2021
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, 21/04/2021
3,500
53163/21
23/09/2021
Yan Vladimirovich KOLCHANOV Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Yekaterinburg
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community service
Sverdlovsk Regional 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 - Final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 13/05/2021
3,500
53169/21
23/09/2021
Aleksey Vladimirovich CHELYSHEV Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Yekaterinburg
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
20 hours of community service
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
09/06/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 3.27 p.m. to unspecified time on 23/01/20201 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 09/06/2021
4,000
53174/21
23/09/2021
Timofey Vasilyevich RADYA Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Yekaterinburg
Manifestation in support of Navalnyy
Yekaterinburg
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
39 hours of community service
Sverdlovsk Regional Court
13/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 3.27 p.m. to unspecified time on 23/01/20201 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 13/07/2021
4,000
57560/21
07/11/2021
Mukhamad Amridin SIRIDZHIDINZODA Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Manifestation in support of Izzat Amon
Moscow
02/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
13/07/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 2 p.m. to unspecified time on 02/04/2021 for the sole purpose of drawing a record of administrative offence, raised on appeal,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Final decision: Moscow City Court, 13/07/2021
4,000
51290/22
22/10/2022
Rustem Rinatovich NABIULLIN
Manifestation against the war in Ukraine
Kazan
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.3.3 of CAO, § 1
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 30,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
22/06/2022
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
06/07/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention from 2.30 p.m. on 13/03/2022 to 14/03/2022 for the sole purpose of drawing up an administrative offence record and bringing the applicant to court hearing, raised on appeal
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