THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PROKUDIN AND SHCHEGOLEV v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 39224/22 and 11652/23)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 May 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Prokudin and Shchegolev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 April 2025,
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 difference in treatment between male and female personnel of police/penal system as regards entitlement to parental leave/sick child leave. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. 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. In application no. 11652/23 the determination of the applicant’s cassation appeal, which occurred after that date, should be regarded as the exercise of an available domestic remedy rather than a new instance of interference. 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; Pivkina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 2134/23 and 6 others, §§ 73-74, 6 June 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 87. The applicants complained principally of the difference in treatment between male and female personnel of police/penal system as regards entitlement to parental leave/sick child leave. They relied on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
8. In the leading cases of Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and Gruba and Others v. Russia, nos. 66180/09 and 3 others, 6 July 2021, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the difference in treatment between male and female personnel of police/penal system as regards entitlement to parental leave/sick child leave cannot be said to be reasonably and objectively justified. There was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the legitimate aim of maintaining the operational effectiveness of the police/penal system and the contested difference in treatment. The Court therefore concludes that this difference in treatment, of which the applicants were the victims, amounted to discrimination on grounds of sex.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
remaining complaintS11. The applicants made additional complaints under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court has examined those complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, they do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gruba and Others, cited above, §§ 101-11), 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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 about the difference in treatment between male and female personnel of police/penal system as regards entitlement to parental leave/sick child leave admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8; 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 15 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention
(interference with the right to respect for family life stemming from disputes related to child care)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Subject matter of the case and the leading case-law reference
Summary of the factual circumstances
Final domestic decision
Court name
Date
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
39224/22
25/07/2022
Anton Vladimirovich PROKUDIN
1980
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Discrimination on grounds of sex - the difference in entitlement to parental leave between male and female personnel of the penal system in the absence of objective and reasonable justification
Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);
Gruba and Others v. Russia, nos. 66180/09 and 3 others, 6 July 2021
The applicant is a former deputy head of a correctional colony. He has four children (born in 2011, 2018 and twins born in September 2020). On 15/03/2021 the applicant asked his superior for parental leave until his twin daughters reached the age of three years. On 24/03/2021 his request was refused because parental leave could be granted to male officers serving in the penal system, who were fathers, only if their children were left without maternal care (Article 58 (10) of the Federal Law no. 197-FZ on service in the penal system of the Russian Federation). The applicant challenged the lawfulness of the refusal before the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg, arguing that his having four children, including twins who were born prematurely, indicated the existence of objective reasons why the maternal care only did not suffice. On 25/06/2021 the District Court dismissed his claim, having found that the children’s mother had not been deprived of parental authority and had no medical reasons preventing her from taking care of them. On 14/10/2021 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant’s cassation appeals were rejected. Meanwhile, the applicant was dismissed from his post for systematic absence from work.
Supreme Court of Russia
07/06/2022
7,500
11652/23
25/02/2022
Vadim Vladimirovich SHCHEGOLEV
1979
Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich
Velikiy Novgorod
Discrimination on grounds of sex - the difference in entitlement to sick child leave between male and female police personnel in the absence of objective and reasonable justification
Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);
Gruba and Others v. Russia, nos. 66180/09 and 3 others, 6 July 2021
The applicant is a former police officer. He has two children born in 2011 and 2018. After a failed attempt to be granted parental leave, he was dismissed from office for absence from work between 01/12/2020 and 14/01/2021. The applicant’s argument that he was absent to take care of his sick children was rejected with reference to Article 65 (2.1) of the Federal Law no. 342-FZ on service in the Ministry of the Interior agencies of the Russian Federation. According to this provision, male police officers who are fathers are entitled to sick child leave only if there are objective reasons why the mother cannot care for the sick child (such as the mother’s being on a business trip, deprived of parental rights, undergoing treatment in a hospital, etc.). The applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal arguing that his wife could not take care of the children in the above period for objective reasons (working and taking care of the applicant’s sick mother). On 14/09/2021 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding the absence of objective reasons (the applicant’s wife could have taken sick child leave, she has been taking care of the applicant’s mother only several times a week) and reiterating the position of the Constitutional Court of Russia (decision no. 566-O-O of 16 April 2009) regarding the special legal status of those serving in the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior, which implied certain limitations on their rights and freedoms, including the lack of entitlement to parental leave of fathers serving in Ministry of the Interior agencies who raised children together with the [children’s] mother. On 12/01/2022 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. The applicant further pursued cassation-review procedure, in vain.
Supreme Court of Russia
31/10/2022
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.