5151/18;958/20;2492/20;2612/20;2967/20;2971/20;7802/20;7898/20;8489/20;9491/20;11417/20;14654/20;14655/20;14666/20;15299/20;15304/20;17323/20;17634/20;20018/20;20318/20
WyrokETPCz2023-04-27ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0427JUD000515118
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy środki podjęte przez władze rosyjskie przeciwko uczestnikom i organizatorom zgromadzeń publicznych, w tym ich rozpędzanie, aresztowania i skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w ich prawo do wolności zgromadzeń (art. 11 Konwencji) oraz czy naruszyły 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 środki podjęte przeciwko skarżącym, polegające na rozpędzaniu zgromadzeń publicznych, aresztowaniach i skazaniach za wykroczenia administracyjne, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w ich prawo do wolności zgromadzeń, gwarantowane przez art. 11 Konwencji. Opierał się na swojej ugruntowanej linii orzeczniczej dotyczącej wolności zgromadzeń i proporcjonalności ingerencji. Ponadto, Trybunał uznał, że inne skargi skarżących, dotyczące bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności (art. 5 ust. 1) oraz braku bezstronności sądów w postępowaniach administracyjnych (art. 6 ust. 1), również ujawniły naruszenia Konwencji, powołując się na swoje wcześniejsze orzecznictwo w podobnych sprawach. Trybunał miał jurysdykcję, ponieważ fakty miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r., kiedy to Federacja Rosyjska przestała być stroną Konwencji.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli uczestnikami lub organizatorami zgromadzeń publicznych w Rosji. Władze rosyjskie podjęły wobec nich środki, takie jak rozpędzanie zgromadzeń, aresztowania, a następnie skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne (np. na grzywny lub areszt administracyjny) na podstawie artykułów Kodeksu Wykroczeń Administracyjnych (CAO), np. art. 20.2 § 5, 6, 6.1, 8. Niektórzy skarżący skarżyli się również na bezprawne pozbawienie wolności (np. zatrzymanie przekraczające 3 godziny bez podstawy prawnej) oraz brak bezstronności sądów krajowych z powodu braku strony oskarżającej w postępowaniu administracyjnym.Rozstrzygnięcie
Decyduje o połączeniu skarg; Stwierdza, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia skarg skarżących, ponieważ dotyczą one faktów, które miały miejsce przed 16 września 2022 r.; Uznaje skargi dotyczące rozpędzania zgromadzeń publicznych oraz inne skargi objęte ugruntowanym orzecznictwem Trybunału, jak określono w załączonej tabeli, za dopuszczalne; Stwierdza, że nie ma potrzeby odrębnego rozpatrywania pozostałych skarg skarżących na podstawie art. 6 Konwencji; Stwierdza naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji; Stwierdza naruszenie Konwencji w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych w ramach ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału (zob. załączona tabela); Zasądza, że państwo-strona ma zapłacić skarżącym, w ciągu trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli (zadośćuczynienie).Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ZAYTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 5151/18 and 19 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zaytsev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 April 2023,
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).
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 the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence. 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. The 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. 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 its well-established case-law (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63‑65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-23, 10 April 2018, Kalyapin v. Russia [Committee], no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019, concerning various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public events; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, related to the examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the administrative offence proceedings and alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
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 the applicants’ complaints as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
Declares the complaints concerning the dispersal of the public assembly 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 deal separately with the remaining complaints of the applicants 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 27 April 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
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 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]
5151/18
08/01/2018
Fedor Aleksandrovich ZAYTSEV Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
Anti-corruption manifestation
Moscow
26/03/2017
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB)
Moscow City Court
14/07/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
958/20
09/12/2019
Nurlan Toktarovich OMAROV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
06/09/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office on 27/07/2019 for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; detention in excess of 3 hours
4,000
2492/20
26/12/2019
Tatyana Grigoryevna TARVID Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov
Moscow
12/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
18/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police office for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence on 12/06/2019; detention in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
2612/20
11/12/2019
Aleksey Petrovich ZELENSKIY Savelyev Anton Alekseyevich
Domodedovo
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
15-day administrative detention
Moscow City Court
05/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of legal grounds for arrest, escorting to the police station and detention there on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
2967/20
11/12/2019
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich STREKALOV Savelyev Anton Alekseyevich
Domodedovo
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6 of CAO
6 days of administrative detention
Moscow City Court
12/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of legal grounds for arrest, escorting to the police station and detention there on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
2971/20
11/12/2019
Anton Romanovich GALLY Savelyev Anton Alekseyevich
Domodedovo
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Trubnaya square, Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
12/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of legal grounds for arrest, escorting to the police station and detention there on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
7802/20
21/01/2020
Marsel Timurovich ALIYEV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Tverskaya str., Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
7898/20
31/01/2020
Matvey Sergeyevich MATVEYEV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov
Moscow
12/06/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
14/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 12/06/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
8489/20
01/02/2020
Oleg Nikolayevich KLIMOV Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
10 days of administrative arrest
Moscow City Court
01/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - lack of any legal grounds for the applicant’s arrest and escorting to the police station on 27/07/2019; detention in excess of 3 hours,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
9491/20
01/02/2020
Valeriy Yuryevich RODIN Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
12 days of administrative arrest
Moscow City Court
01/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and escorting to the police station on 27/07/2019; detention in excess of 3 hours,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
11417/20
07/02/2020
Artem Igorevich KUZNETSOV Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Trubnaya square, Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
06/11/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
3,500
14654/20
29/02/2020
Aleksandr Vitalyevich SEMIGLAZOV Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Rozhdestvenskiy boulevard, Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 27‑29 July 2019 for the sole alleged purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
14655/20
29/02/2020
Maksim Stanislavovich KAZAK Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Tverskaya str., Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
30/08/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 27‑29 July 2019 for the sole alleged purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence
4,000
14666/20
29/02/2020
Maksim Mikhaylovich UCHAYKIN Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Rozhdestvenskiy boulevard, Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
5 days’ administrative arrest
Moscow City Court
30/08/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 27‑29 July 2019 for the sole alleged purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
5,000
15299/20
11/03/2020
Ilya Yevgenyevich PANKOV Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/09/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence
4,000
15304/20
11/03/2020
Sergey Sergeyevich KUZMIN Bayturina Svetlana Nikolayevna
Moscow
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Trubnaya square, Moscow
03/08/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
12/09/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 03/08/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence
4,000
17323/20
16/03/2020
Vladimir Nikolayevich SITNIKOV Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Tverskaya str., Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Moscow City Court
16/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest, escorting to the police station and detention on 27‑29 July 2019 for the sole alleged purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
6,000
17634/20
16/03/2020
Roman Eduardovich ZAMKOV Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
16/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27-29/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
20018/20
10/03/2020
Andrey Anatolyevich FILONOV Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
12/09/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - detention on 27/07/2019 in excess of 3 hours for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings
4,000
20318/20
25/03/2020
Denis Yuryevich PORTNOV Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
Manifestation for fair elections to Mosgorduma
Moscow
27/07/2019
Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
02/12/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrest and detention on 27-28/07/2019 for the sole purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence; raised on appeal;
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal in view of the absence of the prosecuting party in the 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