CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 23 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 40050/17 and 50535/17 OOO REDAKTSIYA SEM NA SEM against Russia and Sofya Dmitriyevna YEZHOVA against Russia lodged on 29 May 2017 and 11 July 2017 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASEs The applicants are an independent online magazine 7x7 and its editor-in-chief. The Russian telecoms regulator Roskomnadzor found them in breach of the applicable regulations for publishing links to two satirical YouTube videos containing profane language. The courts found them liable for “spreading information harming children’s health and development” and gave them fines (final decisions: the Syktyvkar Town Court, 29 November and 2 December 2016 in respect of the magazine, and 19 April 2017 in respect of the editor). Even after the links had been removed, Roskomnadzor issued a letter of warning to the magazine for a breach of the Mass Media Act. QUESTIONS Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts draw a distinction between the materials published by the magazine and a link to an external site? Did they take into account that the magazine and its editor had no control over the material on an external site? Was the sanction necessary in a democratic society? Lastly, as regards the letter of warning, did they take into account that the offending links had been removed before the letter had been issued?