83038/17;3538/18;7940/18;21583/18;29958/18;30161/18;33646/18;54920/18;504/19;3288/19;9560/19;14140/19;20630/19;33046/19;43878/19;63934/19;45813/21;48307/21
WyrokETPCz2024-07-11ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0711JUD008303817
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 Rosji, takie jak aresztowania i skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w prawo do wolności zgromadzeń, naruszając art. 11 Konwencji oraz inne powiązane prawa, w tym prawo do wolności, rzetelnego procesu, wolności wyrażania opinii i prawo do odwołania?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał, odwołując się do swojego ugruntowanego orzecznictwa dotyczącego wolności zgromadzeń (art. 11 Konwencji) i proporcjonalności ingerencji w nią, stwierdził, że środki podjęte przeciwko skarżącym – aresztowania i skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne – nie były "niezbędne w społeczeństwie demokratycznym". W konsekwencji, doszło do naruszenia art. 11. Ponadto, w odniesieniu do innych skarg, takich jak bezprawne pozbawienie wolności (art. 5 ust. 1), brak bezstronności sądu w postępowaniach administracyjnych (art. 6 ust. 1), skazanie za nawoływanie do udziału w zgromadzeniach publicznych (art. 10 ust. 1) oraz brak skutku zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego (art. 2 Protokołu nr 7), Trybunał również stwierdził naruszenia, powołując się na swoje wcześniejsze wyroki w podobnych sprawach.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli osobami, które organizowały lub uczestniczyły w zgromadzeniach publicznych w Rosji. Skarżyli się na nieproporcjonalne środki podjęte przeciwko nim, w tym aresztowania w związku z rozproszeniem tych zgromadzeń oraz skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne. Niektórzy skarżący podnieśli również inne zarzuty dotyczące bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności, braku bezstronności sądów w postępowaniach administracyjnych, skazania za nawoływanie do udziału w zgromadzeniach oraz braku skutku zawieszającego odwołania od kary aresztu administracyjnego.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie:
- Decyduje o połączeniu skarg.
- Stwierdza, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia tych 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.
- Stwierdza, że skargi te ujawniają naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji.
- 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 pozwane państwo ma zapłacić skarżącym, w ciągu trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, przeliczone na walutę pozwanego państwa według kursu obowiązującego w dniu zapłaty.
- Orzeka, że od upływu wyżej wymienionych trzech miesięcy do dnia zapłaty, odsetki proste będą naliczane od powyższych kwot według stopy równej krańcowej stopie oprocentowania pożyczek Europejskiego Banku Centralnego w okresie zwłoki plus trzy punkty procentowe.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF UDALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 83038/17 and 17 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 Udalov 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 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; 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
14. 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
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;
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 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 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 per applicant
(in euros)[1]
83038/17
30/11/2017
Sergey Borisovich UDALOV Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
Anticorruption rally
St Petersburg
12/06/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
28/06/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 12-13/06/2017 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
3538/18
13/12/2017
Stanislav Andreyevich KORENYUGIN Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
Anticorruption rally
Moscow
26/03/2017
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Moscow
31/01/2021
Indoors political meeting
Moscow, 13/03/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
article 20.33 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
10 days of detention
fine of RUB 5,000
Moscow City Court
10/07/2017
Moscow City Court
03/02/2021
Lyubertsy Town Court of Moscow Region
14/09/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - (i) on 31/01/2021 until 01/02/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report;
(ii) on 13/03/2021 escorting to a police station for compiling offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in two sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.2 of CAO,
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the sentence of 10-day detention in 2021 was executed immediately; an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect.
5,000
7940/18
19/01/2018
Oksana Rafikovna KHARINOVA Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou
Anticorruption rally
Uhta
26/03/2017
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Uhta
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
fine of RUB 10,000
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
19/07/2017
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
17/03/2021
3,500
21583/18
23/04/2018
Natalya Aleksandrovna SUBBOTINA Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Perm
22/09/2017
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Perm
07/10/2017
Gathering to support arrested protesters (following the above rally)
Perm
07/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
20 hours of community work
20 hours of community work
Perm Regional Court
23/10/2017
Perm Regional Court
20/11/2017
Perm Regional Court
18/12/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 22/09/2017 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.2 § 5 of CAO (final decision on 23/10/2017).
4,000
29958/18
08/06/2018
Irina Aleksandrovna NEVEROVA Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Perm
03/09/2017
Protest rally
Perm
22/09/2017
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Perm
07/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
20 hours of community work
20 hours of community work
Perm Regional Court
26/12/2017
Perm Regional Court
22/12/2017
Perm Regional Court
11/12/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (final decision on 22/12/2017 by the Perm Regional Court).
3,500
30161/18
09/06/2018
Georgiy Borisovich SHABANOV Pershakova Yelena Yuryevna
Moscow
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Perm
07/10/2017
Opposition rally
Perm
05/05/2018
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Perm
23/01/2021
Protest rally
Perm
21/04/2021
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
100 hours of community work
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 15,000
Perm Regional Court
11/12/2017
Perm Regional Court
09/08/2018
Perm Regional Court
02/06/2021
Perm Regional Court
11/08/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 14/05/2018 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report in relation to the rally on 05/05/2018,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (final decision on 02/06/2021 by the Perm Regional Court).
4,000
33646/18
21/06/2018
Anatoliy Vyacheslavovich SHIRINKIN Shabanov Georgiy Borisovich
Troitsa
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Perm
07/10/2017
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Perm Regional Court
21/12/2017
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
54920/18
31/10/2018
Filipp Aleksandrovich SHCHELKANOV Cherkasov Vitaliy Viktorovich
St Petersburg
Opposition rally
St Petersburg
05/05/2018
article 19.3 § 1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
15 days of detention
fine of RUB 10,000
St Petersburg City Court
30/05/2018
St Petersburg City Court
26/06/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 05-06/05/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling offence reports,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in both sets of the administrative-offence proceedings,
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.
5,000
504/19
11/12/2018
Firgat Fidaliyevich FAYZRAKHMANOV Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Rally against the pension reform
Kazan
09/09/2018
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
4 days of detention
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
12/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-10/09/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,
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 - immediate execution of the sentence of detention; an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect.
5,000
3288/19
19/12/2018
Aleksey Igorevich CHERNOV Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Rally against the pension reform
Kazan
09/09/2018
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
4 days of detention
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
21/09/2018
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 09-10/09/2018 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,
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 - immediate execution of the sentence of detention; an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect.
5,000
9560/19
05/02/2019
Ilya Sergeyevich VAGIN Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
Opposition rally
Nizhniy Novgorod
05/05/2018
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Nizhniy Novgorod Reginal Court
08/08/2018
3,500
14140/19
05/03/2019
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich KARAVAYEV
Rally to commemorate B. Nemtsov
Nizhniy Novgorod
25/02/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
30 hours of community work
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
06/09/2018
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
20630/19
04/04/2019
Stanislav Valeryevich ZAKHAROV Sukachev Roman Vasilyevich
Chita
Protest rally
Chita
03/11/2018
article 20.2 § 2 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Zabaykalye Regional Court
24/12/2018
Art. 10 (1) - conviction for making calls to participate in public events - the applicant was sentenced to two fines of RUB 10,000 for reposting - on two social networks - one message relating to a forthcoming protest rally (Art. 20.2 § 1 of CAO; final decisions on 24/12/2018 by the Zabaykalye Regional Court) (in the meantime, the rally had been eventually approved and had been held as planned on 03/11/2018).
4,000
33046/19
11/06/2019
Adel Damirovich BADRETDINOV Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
Rally against the pension reform
Kazan
09/09/2018
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic
17/04/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 22-23/03/2019 escorting to and detention in a police station for and after compiling an offence report,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
4,000
43878/19
06/08/2019
Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich KHLYNOV
Spontaneous meeting against arbitrary detention of protesters
Moscow
06/10/2018
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
06/05/2019
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.
3,500
63934/19
30/11/2019
Artem Igorevich KULIKOVSKIY Zakhvatov Dmitriy Igorevich
Moscow
Protest action
Moscow
10/03/2019
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
02/07/2019
3,500
45813/21
25/08/2021
Maksim Valeryevich KUKUSHKIN Bubon Konstantin Vladimirovich
Khabarovsk
Rally to support A. Navalnyy
Khabarovsk
23/01/2021
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 150,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
05/05/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 23-24/01/2021 escorting to and detention in a police station for compiling an offence report.
5,500
48307/21
06/09/2021
Dmitriy Sergeyevich TIMOSHENKO Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich
Moscow
Rallies to support S. Furgal in Khabarovsk on:
24/10/2020
26/10/2020
31/10/2020
07/11/2020
26/12/2020
article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 10,000
fine of RUB 75,000
fine of RUB 150,000
fine of RUB 150,000
Khabarovsk Regional Court
11/03/2021
18/03/2021
09/03/2021
15/03/2021
16/03/2021
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - on 16/01/2021 escorting to a police station for compiling an offence report in relation to the rally on 24/10/2020.
7,000
[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