THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 76249/17
Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 November 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko, was born in 1980.
On 24 August 2008 the applicant took part in a picket in defence of human rights on Red Square in Moscow. The police dispersed the event, arrested the applicant and escorted him to a police station.
On 22 October 2008 the Justice of the Peace of the 369th Court District of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) for participation in an unauthorised public event and fined him 500 Russian roubles (about 14 euros). On 19 November 2008 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld that judgment.
The applicant subsequently lodged proceedings under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”) challenging the dispersal of the picket and his arrest. On 17 December 2008 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed his claims, relying on the findings in the administrative-offence proceedings and holding that the police had acted lawfully. The applicant received the judgment on 4 March 2009. His appeal was dismissed in his absence by the Moscow City Court on 9 July 2009.
Meanwhile, on 10 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia adopted Plenary Ruling no. 2 clarifying that proceedings under Chapter 25 of the CCP were not applicable to acts taken in the context of administrative-offence cases, in particular where the CAO provided a specific appeal procedure in respect of rulings in such cases or where the impugned acts, inseparably linked to such proceedings, could not be challenged independently (such as administrative arrest or escort to a police station).
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 5 § 1, 6, 11 and 13 of the Convention about the termination of his participation in the public event, his arrest and escort to the police station, and his ensuing administrative conviction were communicated to the Russian Government.
THE LAW
Having examined the observations and other material submitted by the parties, the Court considers it appropriate to address first the issue of compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It reiterates that the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Varnava and Others v. Türkiye [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009). Under the CAO, as in force at the relevant time, a first-instance judgment was subject to appeal. Accordingly, the appeal judgment in administrative-offence proceedings is to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the six‑month time-limit (see Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 26 and 30, 3 October 2013; and Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, § 109, 25 July 2017).
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the applicant was convicted in administrative-offence proceedings on 22 October 2008, and his conviction was upheld on appeal on 19 November 2008. It further observes that the applicant pursued separate civil proceedings under Chapter 25 of the CCP, challenging the police actions during the dispersal of the picket. He received the judgment dismissing his civil claims on 4 March 2009 and subsequently lodged an appeal. However, less than a month earlier, on 10 February 2009, the Supreme Court had clarified in Plenary Ruling No. 2 that civil proceedings were not available to contest acts taken in the context of administrative-offence cases, particularly where the CAO itself provided a specific avenue of appeal.
The Court considers that in these circumstances, the applicant should have realised, upon receipt of the first-instance judgment in civil proceedings on 4 March 2009, that further pursuit of that remedy was futile. He could not therefore rely on those proceedings to extend the six-month time-limit, which started to run from the date of the appeal judgment of 19 November 2008. By having lodged his application on 5 December 2009, the applicant has failed to comply with the six-month rule.
It follows that the application was introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 December 2025.
Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Acting Deputy Registrar President