43224/17;70396/17;75215/17;79982/17;5267/18;7362/18;8455/18;13493/18;18418/18;21764/18;25889/18;26576/18;26751/18;40130/18;41271/18;44535/18;50659/18;52116/18;57314/18;4441/19;17257/19;20949/19;32059/19;47354/20
WyrokETPCz2024-07-11ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0711JUD004322417
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy brak strony oskarżającej w postępowaniach o wykroczenia administracyjne naruszył prawo do bezstronnego sądu z art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 6 ust. 1 Konwencji w związku z brakiem bezstronności sądów w postępowaniach o wykroczenia administracyjne, powołując się na swoje wiodące orzeczenie w sprawie Karelin przeciwko Rosji, gdzie stwierdzono podobne naruszenia. Trybunał uznał, że nie przedstawiono żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które mogłyby skłonić go do odmiennego wniosku. W odniesieniu do pozostałych skarg, Trybunał również stwierdził naruszenia Konwencji i Protokołów, odwołując się do swojego ugruntowanego orzecznictwa w kwestiach takich jak bezprawne pozbawienie wolności, bezprawne przeszukanie, ograniczenia wolności słowa i zgromadzeń oraz brak skutku zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, obywatele Rosji, wnieśli skargi dotyczące braku bezstronności sądów w postępowaniach o wykroczenia administracyjne, w których byli sądzeni, z uwagi na brak strony oskarżającej. Ponadto, niektórzy skarżący zgłosili inne zarzuty, w tym dotyczące bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności, bezprawnego przeszukania, administracyjnego skazania za wzywanie do udziału w zgromadzeniach publicznych, innych ograniczeń prawa do wolności wyrażania opinii, nieproporcjonalnych środków wobec uczestników i organizatorów wydarzeń publicznych oraz braku skutku zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie:
- Postanawia połączyć skargi.
- Stwierdza, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia tych skarg, ponieważ dotyczą one faktów, które miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r.
- Uznaje skargę na podstawie art. 6 § 1 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.
- Stwierdza, że skargi te ujawniają naruszenie art. 6 § 1 Konwencji w zakresie braku bezstronności sądu z uwagi na brak strony oskarżającej w postępowaniach o wykroczenia administracyjne.
- Stwierdza, że doszło do naruszenia Konwencji i Protokołów do niej w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału (zob. załączona tabela).
- Orzeka, że Państwo-Respondent ma zapłacić skarżącym, w terminie trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, przeliczone na walutę Państwa-Respondenta według kursu obowiązującego w dniu zapłaty.
- Orzeka, że od upływu wyżej wymienionych trzech miesięcy do dnia zapłaty, od powyższych kwot będą należne odsetki proste według stopy równej krańcowej stopie oprocentowania pożyczek Europejskiego Banku Centralnego w okresie zwłoki plus trzy punkty procentowe.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ZAVOROTNYKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 43224/17 and 23 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 July 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zavorotnykh and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 June 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 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.
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 6 § 1 of the Convention
7. 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.
8. In the leading case of Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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 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. 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.
11. 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 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; Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos. 11264/04 and 15 others, §§ 107‑38, 4 February 2020, regarding unlawful search; 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; Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, §§ 121-45, 5 April 2022, as to other restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 93-142, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014, Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, and Bodalev v. Russia, no. 67200/12, §§ 96-107, 6 September 2022, as to disproportionate measures in respect of participants and organisers of public events; and 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
12. Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention or Protocols to it. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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.
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 complaint under Article 6 § 1 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;
Holds that these complaints 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 the administrative-offence proceedings;
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 11 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
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]
43224/17
03/06/2017
Sergey Viktorovich ZAVOROTNYKH Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
5 days of detention
06/12/2016 Moscow City Court
1,000
70396/17
07/09/2017
Denis Vladimirovich LARTSEV Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
1 day of detention
13/04/2017 Rostov Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26‑27/03/2017 detention in a police station after compiling an offence report.
4,000
75215/17
19/10/2017
Sergey Igorevich GORKAYEV Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
7 days of detention
26/04/2017 Moscow City Court
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of the sentence of detention; an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect.
1,300
79982/17
14/11/2017
Aleksey Valeryevich VLASOV Sotnikov Dmitriy Valeryevich
Balashikha
40 hours of community work
15/05/2017
Tula Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 26/03/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report;
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to community work under Art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation in an anticorruption rally on 26/03/2017 in Tula
4,000
5267/18
16/12/2017
Kirill Georgiyevich VOLSKIY Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg
10 days of detention
fine of RUB 10,000
20/06/2017 St Petersburg City Court
04/07/2017 St Petersburg City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12‑13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports.
4,000
7362/18
09/01/2018
Denis Gennadyevich GONCHAROV Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
5 days of detention
fine of RUB 15,000
11/07/2017 St Petersburg City Court
11/07/2017 St Petersburg City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12-14/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports.
4,000
8455/18
18/01/2018
Yana Aleksandrovna BABENKO Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg
fine of RUB 10,000
20/07/2017 St Petersburg City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12‑13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports.
4,000
13493/18
20/02/2018
Aleksey Valeryevich CHERNIKOV Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
fine of RUB 10,000
22/08/2017 St Petersburg City Court
1,000
18418/18
02/04/2018
Konstantin Borisovich ZYKOV
Tatyana Yevgenyevna ZYKOVA
Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
10 days of detention (Zykov)
3 days of detention (Zykov)
12/10/2017 Krasnodar Regional Court
13/04/2018 Krasnodar Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 17/03/2018 both applicants’ escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports,
Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search – a court refused to authorise a search in the flat where the applicants resided, in the absence of any evidence substantiating the allegation that there were reasons to suspect that there might be firearms in that flat; a search was carried out on 17/03/2018; it was then validated by the courts, with reference to some documents found during the search as to Mr Zykov’s business activities (final decision on 03/05/2018 by the Krasnodar Regional Court),
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – Mr Zykov was sentenced to 10-day detention for organising a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 07/10/2017 (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO; final decision on 12/10/2017 by the Krasnodar Regional Court).
5,000,
to Mr Zykov
and
4,000,
to Ms Zykova
21764/18
25/04/2018
Aleksey Valeryevich BOCHENKOV Sergeyeva Irina Vadimovna
Moscow
15 days of detention
10/11/2017 Moscow City Court
1,000
25889/18
25/05/2018
Aleksandra Vladimirovna SEMENOVA Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
fine of RUB 20,000
12/03/2018 Perm Regional Court
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events – the applicant was sentenced to two fines of RUB 20,000 in relation to a rally on 07/10/2017 to support A. Navalnyy’s presidential campaign and a political meeting on 24/11/2017 (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO; final decisions on 30/11/2017 and 12/03/2018 by the Perm Regional Court respectively).
3,500
26576/18
17/05/2018
Nikolay Nikolayevich VITKEVICH
3 days of detention
08/12/2017 Bryansk Regional Court
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of the sentence of 3-day detention; an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect.
1,300
26751/18
08/05/2018
Yan Igorevich PAVLOVSKIY Pyshkin Valentin Valentinovich
St Petersburg
fine of RUB 15,000
7 days of detention
09/11/2017 St Petersburg City Court
09/11/2017 St Petersburg City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 08-09/10/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports.
4,000
40130/18
08/08/2018
Anna Nikolayevna PETKOGLO Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
fine of RUB 20,000
08/02/2018, Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - the applicant was sentenced to a fine of RUB 20,000 for making comments during an online interview to Navalnyy.Live on a protest rally on 29/09/2017 (Art. 20.2 § 1 of CAO, final decision on 08/02/2018 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court).
3,500
41271/18
30/07/2018
Natalya Anatolyevna VAVILOVA Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
fine of RUB 20,000
02/02/2018 Perm Regional Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 08/10/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report in relation to a protest rally on 07/10/2017,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 20,000 in relation to the rally on 07/10/2017 (Art. 20.2 § 5 CAO, final decision on 02/02/2018 by the Perm Regional Court).
4,000
44535/18
06/09/2018
Valeriy Yuryevich NADEZHDIN
7 days of detention
fine of RUB 20,000
22/03/2018 Moscow City Court
08/08/2018 Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12/03/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling an offence report,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies – the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine and detention in relation to his participation in a protest rally on 12/03/2018 (Arts. 20.1 and 20.2 of CAO, final decisions on 22/03/2018 and 08/08/2018 by the Moscow City Court).
5,000
50659/18
10/10/2018
Ilya Viktorovich FEDIN Zhdanov Ivan Yuryevich
Vilnius
fine of RUB 10,000
07/06/2018 St Petersburg City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 05/05/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report.
4,000
52116/18
31/10/2018
Boris Mikhaylovich ZOLOTAREVSKIY Lepekhin Andrey Gennadyevich
Chelyabinsk
25 days of detention
9 days of detention
30 days of detention
09/05/2018 Chelyabinsk Regional Court
12/09/2018 Chelyabinsk Regional Court
13/08/2019 Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (i) on 05/05/2018 and 08/09/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report; (ii) on 10-12/08/2019 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling an offence report,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events –
(i) the applicant was arrested and sentenced to 25-day and 9-day detention in relation to an opposition rally on 05/05/2018 and a rally against the pension reform on 09/09/2018 in Chelyabinsk respectively (Art. 20.2 of CAO, final decisions on 09/05/2018 and 12/09/2018 by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court);
(ii) the applicant’s call to the participants of an approved rally on 10/08/2019 in Moscow to continue the protest with a "promenade" toward the Presidential Administration; he was arrested and sentenced to 30-day detention with reference to the lack of official approval for such promenade (Art. 20.2 § 8 of CAO, final decision on 13/08/2019 by the Moscow City Court),
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of three sentences of detention; an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect.
8,000
57314/18
13/11/2018
Aleksandr Andreyevich TROFIMOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
fine of RUB 1,000
14/05/2018 Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 22/02/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - on 22/02/2018 the applicant distributed political leaflets; he was arrested and fined (Art. 5.12 of CAO, final decision on 14/05/2018 by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow) (Teslenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 49588/12 and 3 others, 5 April 2022).
4,000
4441/19
08/01/2019
Ilgam Ilgizarovich SHAKIROV
fine of RUB 2,000
09/07/2018 Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan
1,000
17257/19
21/03/2019
Vladislav Valeriyevich KHODAKOVSKIY
fine of RUB 10,000
21/09/2018 Voronezh Regional Court
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was sentenced to a fine of RUB 10,000 for his participation in an opposition rally on 05/05/2018.
3,500
20949/19
08/04/2019
Roman Alekseyevich PAVLOV Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
fine of RUB 10,000
22/03/2019 Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 05/05/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was arrested and fined for participation in an opposition rally on 05/05/2018 (Art. 20.2 of CAO, final decision on 22/03/2019 by the Moscow City Court).
4,000
32059/19
05/06/2019
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GOLOVACH
fine of RUB 20,000
4 days of detention
06/12/2018 Moscow City Court
24/03/2021 Moscow City Court
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – (i) on 17-18/10/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report in relation to a rally against the pension reform on 09/09/2018; (ii) on 31/01/2021-02/02/2021 detention in a police station after compiling an offence report in relation to a rally to support A. Navalnyy on 31/01/2021,
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 20,000 for making calls to participate at the rally on 09/09/2018 (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO, final decision on 06/12/2018 by the Moscow City Court),
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - the applicant was arrested and sentenced to 4-day detention in relation to the rally on 31/01/2021 (Art. 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, final decision on 24/03/2021 by the Moscow City Court).
5,000
47354/20
02/10/2020
Irina Anatolyevna NIKIFOROVA Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Sochi
fine of RUB 10,000
30 hours of community work
22/01/2020 Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic
27/05/2020 Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 16/12/2019 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant was making a video recording during a rally against construction of a waste incineration plant on 16/12/2019; she was arrested and sentenced to a fine of RUB 10,000 (Art. 20.2.2 of CAO, final decision on 22/01/2020 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic),
Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - on 03-26/02/2020 the applicant organised a number of solo demonstrations against the above construction project; she provided information about them on her social-networking page; the courts sentenced her to community work, considering that those demonstrations by different people on different days had been conducted with the same purpose and thus were one "rally" requiring prior notification (Art. 20.2 § 2 of CAO, final decision on 27/05/2020 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic).
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