8417/23;11024/23;11655/23;11931/23;12097/23;12220/23;13085/23;13467/23;13840/23;14605/23;14610/23;15128/23;15761/23;16376/23;16707/23;17355/23;18493/23;18709/23;19372/23;21771/23;22976/23
WyrokETPCz2024-03-28ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0328JUD000841723
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy aresztowania i skazania za wykroczenia administracyjne uczestników antywojennych protestów w Rosji stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w prawo do wolności zgromadzeń (art. 11 Konwencji) oraz bezprawne pozbawienie wolności (art. 5 ust. 1 Konwencji)?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał uznał, że środki podjęte przeciwko skarżącym, polegające na aresztowaniu i skazaniu za wykroczenia administracyjne w związku z ich udziałem w protestach antywojennych, stanowiły nieproporcjonalną ingerencję w ich prawo do wolności zgromadzeń. Opierając się na swoim ugruntowanym orzecznictwie dotyczącym wolności zgromadzeń i proporcjonalności ingerencji, Trybunał stwierdził, że nie znalazł żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które skłoniłyby go do odmiennego wniosku, uznając, że ingerencje te nie były „konieczne w społeczeństwie demokratycznym”. Dodatkowo, w odniesieniu do skarg dotyczących bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności, Trybunał uznał, że również one ujawniają naruszenia Konwencji, odwołując się do wcześniejszych wyroków dotyczących bezprawnego pozbawienia wolności organizatorów lub uczestników zgromadzeń publicznych.Stan faktyczny
Dwudziestu jeden skarżących uczestniczyło w protestach antywojennych w Moskwie w różnych datach w 2022 roku. Wszyscy skarżący zostali zatrzymani i skazani za wykroczenia administracyjne, głównie na podstawie art. 20.2 § 5 rosyjskiego Kodeksu Wykroczeń Administracyjnych, co skutkowało nałożeniem grzywien. Większość skarżących skarżyła się również na bezprawne pozbawienie wolności w związku z zatrzymaniem na posterunku policji, które trwało od kilku do kilkunastu godzin.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie:
- Decyduje o połączeniu skarg.
- Stwierdza, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia tych skarg, ponieważ dotyczą 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.
- Stwierdza naruszenie art. 11 Konwencji.
- Stwierdza naruszenie Konwencji w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału (zob. załączona tabela).
- Orzeka, że pozwane państwo ma zapłacić skarżącym, w terminie trzech miesięcy, kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli, które zostaną przeliczone na walutę państwa pozwanego 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 Europejskiego Banku Centralnego w okresie zwłoki powiększonej o trzy punkty procentowe.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ZAYTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 8417/23 and 20 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 Zaytseva 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 participants in the protests against the Russian military attack on Ukraine, which occurred on various dates in Moscow. 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 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.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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;
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]
8417/23
20/01/2023
Alena Andreyevna ZAYTSEVA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
21/09/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.20 p.m. until 8 p.m. on 27/02/2022.
4,000
11024/23
23/02/2023
Yulyus Kyastutovich CHYASNAVICHYUS
Anti-war protest
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
25/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.45 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 4.17 a.m. on 25/02/2022.
4,000
11655/23
22/02/2023
Yelena Yuryevna RYZHOVA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
31/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on 13/03/2022
4,000
11931/23
19/02/2023
Glafira Sergeyevna YEFTEYEVA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
19/10/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.30 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 2.30 a.m. on 25/02/2022.
4,000
12097/23
27/02/2023
Polina Viktorovna ALAYEVA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
27/10/2022
3,500
12220/23
03/03/2023
Yeva Sergeyevna FOLGER
Anti-war protest
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
03/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.45 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 3 a.m. on 28/02/2022.
4,000
13085/23
03/03/2023
Marina Igorevna CHUFARINA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
03/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.20 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022.
4,000
13467/23
21/03/2023
Yuriy Valentinovich GREBINICHENKO
Anti-war protest
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
23/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on 27/02/2022.
4,000
13840/23
17/03/2023
Mikhail Valeryevich SEROV
Anti-war protest
Moscow
24/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
17/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.04 p.m. on 24/02/2022 until 2.10 a.m. on 25/02/2022.
4,000
14605/23
17/03/2023
Olesya Vladislavovna ZVEREVA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Moscow City Court
25/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.44 p.m. until 10.28 p.m. on 06/03/2022.
4,000
14610/23
11/03/2023
Pavel Mikhaylovich YEROKHIN
Anti-war protest
Moscow
01/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
11/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8.50 p.m. on 01/03/2022 until 3.10 a.m. on 02/03/2022.
4,000
15128/23
21/03/2023
Aleksey Lvovich MASLOV
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
21/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 3.03 p.m. until 8.15 p.m. on 13/03/2022.
4,000
15761/23
20/02/2023
Olga Ivanovna GAZINA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
03/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
09/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 7.20 p.m. on 03/03/2022 until 12.42 a.m. on 04/03/2022.
4,000
16376/23
06/04/2023
Talgat Takhirovich IMANUTDINOV
Anti-war protest
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
07/12/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 6 p.m. on 27/02/2022 until 12.40 a.m. on 28/02/2022.
4,000
16707/23
25/03/2023
Artemiy Andreyevich STRUCHEV
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
25/11/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.30 p.m. until 10.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022.
4,000
17355/23
08/04/2023
Sergey Vitalyevich ABRAMOV
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
09/12/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station for compiling an offence report from 4.05 p.m. until 10.45 p.m. on 06/03/2022.
4,000
18493/23
18/04/2023
Yevgeniya Leonidovna TKACHUK
Anti-war protest
Moscow
13/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 15,000
Moscow City Court
19/12/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 2.44 p.m. until 10.30 p.m. on 13/03/2022.
4,000
18709/23
05/04/2023
Vyacheslav Sergeyevich MINAYEV
Anti-war protest
Moscow
06/03/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 5,000
Moscow City Court
05/12/2022
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 5.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 until 1.55 a.m. on 07/03/2022.
4,000
19372/23
10/03/2023
Kseniya Mikhaylovna MASLOVA Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Anti-war protest
Moscow
28/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 20,000
Moscow City Court
13/12/2022
3,500
21771/23
25/05/2023
Olga Nikolayevna YAKOVLEVA
Anti-war protest
Moscow
28/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
25/01/2023
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence report from 8 p.m. on 28/02/2022 until 1 a.m. on 01/03/2022.
4,000
22976/23
21/04/2023
Sofya Leonidovna INDENBAUMAN Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna
Kolomna
Anti-war protest
Moscow
27/02/2022
article 20.2 § 5 of CAO
fine of RUB 10,000
Moscow City Court
05/04/2023
3,500
[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