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

1. 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.

2. 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. 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).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8

7.  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.

4. remaining complaintS

11.  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.

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  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,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. 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;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8;
5. 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)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.