CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2616CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB4BC8881 { width:33.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA6D16A31 { width:149.77pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 30272/25 Viktor ČEGAN and Elmira BABAIEVA against the Czech Republic   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30   April   2026 as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Gilberto Felici , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   30272/25) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 24 August 2025 by two Czech and Ukrainian nationals, Mr Viktor Čegan (“the first applicant”) and Ms Elmira Babaieva (“the second applicant”), who were born in 2004 and 1996 respectively and live in Kladno and Prague, and were represented by Ms K. Kalibová, an attorney practising in Prague and the Director of In Iustitia, o.p.s.; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the alleged failure to effectively investigate and adequately punish violence suffered by the applicants at the hands of private individuals whose actions were allegedly motivated by prejudice. 2.     On 1 June 2024 the applicants took part in an assembly in support of Ukraine in the centre of Prague. They were collecting signatures for a petition calling for stricter sanctions against Russia in the context of the war against Ukraine. 3.     Around 3.20 p.m. that day, a group of five Russian-speaking persons (later identified as K.M., E.M., L.M., E.B. and A.M.) approached their stand, which displayed Ukrainian and NATO flag symbols and the statement “Russia – hands off of Ukraine”. A.M. asked the applicants: “Are you bothered by Russia?” and the second applicant replied: “Do you support Russia?”, to which he responded by nodding and saying “Yes, yes.” The second applicant said: “You support Russian was crimes; I am calling the police”, whereupon A.M. reacted by saying: “I am German”. E.M. then approached the stand, saying: “What kind of a propaganda is this?”, to which the second applicant responded: “You are killers, you are killers.” 4.     L.M. then expressed displeasure with the second applicant’s filming of the incident, while K.M. seized an umbrella which was near the stand. The initial verbal altercation then escalated into a physical conflict whereby the second applicant’s phone was damaged, resulting in a broken display. E.M. hit the first applicant’s face with his fist and with his hand and the second applicant was hit on her head by an umbrella and on her face by a hand. A   group of by-standers subsequently called the police. 5.     On 1 June 2024 the police initiated a criminal investigation into alleged offences of disorderly conduct and denial or approval of the crime of genocide. Applicants were considered aggrieved persons in the proceedings. 6.     In the early morning of 3 June 2024 the Russian-speaking group of persons who had taken part in the above-mentioned incident were detained at the Prague Airport and their testimonies were taken by the police. E.B., A.M. and K.M. were released the same day and the rest were released the day after. 7.     On 11 July 2024 the police set the case aside. The actions of E.M., L.M. and the second applicant were transmitted to the administrative authorities in the context of charges of a misdemeanour against civil coexistence. After assessing the video-recordings of the incident made by the second applicant, E.B. and the public surveillance cameras, the police concluded that the conflict had been escalated by the second applicant, who had continued to verbally attack the Russian-speaking persons while they had been leaving the scene. The video evidence did not indicate that any of the persons in the group had expressed approval of Russian aggression against Ukraine. 8.     On 26 August 2024 the applicants submitted a request for a review of the police’s decision by the supervising Prague 1 District Prosecutor (“the district prosecutor”). They disagreed with the finding that the conflict had been caused by all the accused parties and insisted that the second applicant’s behaviour had been necessary to defend against a hate-motivated attack. They further complained that the motive of prejudice had not been sufficiently considered. 9.     On 25 October 2024 the district prosecutor accepted the police’s decision. After recounting the facts as captured on the video-recordings, she concluded that the conflict had clearly been situational and its escalation had been attributable to the second applicant’s subjective perception of the Russian-speaking group’s behaviour as inherently threatening. She considered that from an objective point of view, the group had not behaved violently or aggressively. Although their response to the verbal escalation by the second applicant had been inappropriate or inconsiderate, it had not been so clearly disproportionate as to engage criminal liability. Lastly, the fact that the Russian-speaking persons had approached a stand with a Ukrainian flag and had made a statement concerning Russia did not in itself suffice to conclude that their behaviour had been motivated by prejudice. The video ‑ recordings disproved the second applicant’s claims that they had condoned the Russian aggression against Ukraine or the killing of Ukrainians. 10.     On 4 December 2024 the applicants submitted a request for a review by the Prague municipal prosecutor, disagreeing with the district prosecutor’s interpretation of facts. They argued that the video-recordings showed that the Russian-speaking persons had been the aggressors and that they had merely been defending themselves. The statements condoning the aggression against Ukraine had not been captured on the video because they had happened before the recording had started. The applicants reiterated that the attack against them had displayed several indicators of prejudice which had not been sufficiently considered by the district prosecutor. 11.     On 17 January 2025 the Prague municipal prosecutor approved the district prosecutor’s review, finding her assessment of facts accurate. He admitted that the comments of the Russian speaking persons might have been judged inappropriate or inconsiderate, especially in view of the second applicant’s traumatic experiences related to the war in Ukraine. However, they could not be clearly interpreted as support for Russian aggression. Furthermore, considering the topic of the demonstration and the symbols on the stand, the applicants should have reasonably expected a discussion or questions concerning the subject. The second applicant had escalated the situation by calling the group “killers” because they spoke Russian. The overall context of the incident had not indicated any motive of prejudice on part of the Russian-speaking persons. 12.     On 20 March 2025 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal complaining that the police’s decision and the subsequent approvals at two levels of prosecution had violated their rights to a fair trial, privacy and peaceful assembly. 13.     On 23 April 2025 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal as manifestly ill-founded by decision no. I. ÚS 871/25. It held that the investigation had been thorough, had properly responded to the applicants’ arguments and had resulted in duly and coherently reasoned decisions. It also considered that the investigating authorities had sufficiently examined the potential motive of prejudice in respect of the incident, and it agreed with the prosecutors’ assessment. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 14.     Relying on Articles 3, 8, 11 and 14 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the State had failed to effectively prosecute and adequately punish the violence suffered by them at the hands of private persons who had allegedly acted with the motive of prejudice. They argued that the investigation had not been adequate and independent, the police had not secured enough evidence, and the existing evidence had been assessed in a   biased manner. Despite the presence of several indicators of prejudice, the hate-motivated nature of the attack had not been revealed. 15.     The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints concern a   disagreement with the factual conclusions and assessment of evidence by the police and prosecution. The applicants considered the incident an attack motivated by their support for Ukraine, against which they had merely defended themselves. The police, two levels of prosecution and the Constitutional Court, on the other hand, found that the conflict had been situational and had been escalated by the second applicant and her perception of the Russian-speaking persons’ actions as threatening. 16.     The Court reiterates that its role is not to reassess the evidence and factual findings of the domestic authorities, unless they are clearly arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, mutatis mutandis , Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 189, ECHR 2010). The obligation to conduct an effective investigation is an obligation not of result but of means (see X and Others v.   Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 186, 2 February 2021). The Court is called to intervene only when there is a manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the punishment imposed (see Myumyun v. Bulgaria , no.   67258/13, § 67, 3 November 2015). Therefore, the Court’s assessment of the present case is confined to examining whether the domestic authorities conducted an effective investigation into the incident while taking all reasonable steps to unmask any potential racist motive to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice might have played a role in the events (see   Balázs v. Hungary , no. 15529/12, § 52, 20 October 2015). 17.     In this context, the Court notes that the domestic authorities started their investigation of the incident on the very same day and apprehended the suspects one day later. They collected and assessed a sufficient amount of evidence, including witness statements and video-recordings capturing most of the incident. They transparently and rationally explained the conclusions they had drawn from that evidence. The prosecutors who reviewed the police decision subsequently responded to the applicants’ arguments and explained why they could not accept the interpretation of facts as presented by them. In doing so, the prosecuting authorities specifically clarified why they did not consider that the incident had been caused by prejudice against persons of Ukrainian nationality but amounted to a situational conflict that had escalated on account of heightened tension and mutually conflictual behaviour. 18.     The Court understands that in the context of Russia’s continuing aggression against Ukraine, the applicants might have perceived the Russian ‑ speaking persons’ comments as provocative or even conflictual. It   also considers it comprehensible that such comments might have provoked a tense and emotional reaction. Nevertheless, reiterating the subsidiary nature of its role, the Court must conclude that the domestic authorities’ findings that the conflict did not amount to a hate-motivated attack against the applicants are not manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary or biased. The authorities secured enough evidence to establish the facts of the case and duly explained why they did not find that the incident had been initiated or escalated as a result of prejudice in respect of the applicants’ support of Ukraine. 19.     The Court further observes that the police transmitted to the administrative authorities the investigation of the acts of physical violence, treating them as allegations of a misdemeanour. Considering the domestic authorities’ conclusion that the conflict was not of a hate ‑ motivated nature, misdemeanour proceedings may in principle represent an adequate remedy (contrast Hanovs v. Latvia , no. 40861/22, § 52, 18   July   2024). The applicants did not share with the Court any information or arguments related to those proceedings that would enable it to reach a different conclusion. 20.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the application is manifestly ill-founded must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 21 May 2026.     Martina Keller   María Elósegui   Deputy Registrar   President