CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD66075BF { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 12 November 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   5804/15 Boris Vladimirovich STOMAKHIN against Russia and 5 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 17 October 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 10 §1 of the Convention relating to various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Stomakhin v. Russia , no.   52273/07, 9   May 2018; Dmitriyevskiy v.   Russia , no.   42168/06, 3   October 2017; Karuyev v.   Russia , no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022; and OOO Flavus and Others v.   Russia , nos.   12468/15 and 2 others, 23   June 2020).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Applications raising complaints under Article 10 §1 of the Convention (various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth/registration   Representative’s name and location Summary of facts Final decision Date Name of the court Penalty (award, fine, imprisonment) Legal issues Relevant case-law     5804/15* 14/01/2015 Boris Vladimirovich STOMAKHIN 1974   Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Sofia, Bulgaria The applicant published in his personal blog an article where he had made sarcastic statements regarding terrorist acts at a railway station and in a bus in Volgograd. In particular, he “congratulated” the government with these acts, stated that it was their fault and affirmed that it was vengeance of the “Caucasus Resistance”. He was convicted under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code for glorification of terrorism 23/07/2015, Supreme Court of Russia 7 years’ imprisonment and prohibition to work as a journalist for 5   years The courts did not carry out an independent analysis of the applicant’s statements Stomakhin v. Russia , no.   52273/07, §   108, 9   May 2018 (glorification of terrorism)     4099/20* 23/12/2019 Vladislav Yuryevich SINITSA 1989   Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Kazan The application concerns the incitement to hatred. In July 2019 one of the Twitter users wondered whether it was possible to identify police officers preventing manifestations in Moscow by using their photos published on the Internet and to take revenge on them. The applicant posted the following comment in reply: “They will look at cute happy family photos, study geolocation, and next thing you know, the child of a valiant law enforcement officer just doesn’t come home from school one day. Instead, a snuff video CD arrives in the mail. You ask such questions as if it is your first day in this world!” He was convicted under Article   282 of the Criminal Code of inciting hatred and enmity towards police officers and was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment by decision of 03/09/2019 of the Presnenskiy District Court, upheld on cassation appeal on 21/09/2020 by the Supreme Court of Russia 21/09/2020, Supreme Court of Russia 5 years’ imprisonment Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, the courts did not convincingly establish the applicant’s intention and purpose for disseminating the text, specifically incitement of others to engage in acts of hatred or enmity, punishment disproportionate Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia , no.   42168/06, §   113, 3   October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)     11619/20 18/02/2020 Grigoriy Elektronovich VINTER 1969   Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Peredruk St Petersburg The application concerns the insult of municipal officials, Ms G., head of Cherepovets and Cherepovets Town Duma, and Ms A., mayor of Cherepovets. In 2017-2018 the applicant made several posts concerning the local authorities’ intention to cut down the Pulovskiy Forest in Cherepovets. In particular, he stated that the local authorities were going to sell the land plot with the sanctuary forest to rich businessmen and called them fascists and scum. He said that some of the local officials had bought their posts and the mayor had not been elected by the people. The local officials had had meetings with environmental experts and had posted photos of themselves skiing in the forest but next day they had signed the law allowing to destroy it. He also referred to a manifestation organised by the local residents to save the forest and said that the authorities had told them to get lost. On 26/08/2019 the Cherepovets Town Court, by its final decision, convicted the applicant of insulting public officials and sentenced him to 280 hours of compulsory works, and awarded the victims 60,000   Russian roubles. 26/08/2019, Cherepovets Town Court 280 hours of compulsory works and award to the victims in the amount of 60,000   Russian roubles the national courts did not carry out a proper analysis of the applicant’s statements, they did not take into account the position of the applicant, the position of the persons against whom the statements were directed, the subject matter of the publications, the wording used by the applicant; the penalty imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued   Karuyev v.   Russia , no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities/ State officials)     13442/20* 29/02/2020 Aleksey Aleksandrovich MENYAYLOV 1957   Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Savchuk Chernoye Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Article 282 of the Criminal Code for causing an injury to dignity of a social group as a result of his scripting and posting on a social network nine videos: “Why are girls in such a hurry to have sex?”, “What is the face of a woman who wants you?”, “Why do girls talk on the phone in negligee?”, “Why is a stupid woman considered sexually preferable?”, “Prostitutes of the 74 th   Company”, “What do Hitler’s mother and Poroshenko have in common?”, “The roots of Krupskaya’s fierce hatred of Stalin and heroes in general”, “Ahnenerbe vs.   NKVD or the nuances of ramming” and “Why is it easier for oligophrenic teachers to gain power?”, in which the applicant, using a video sequence from a well-known film or TV series, identified a problem from one or another sphere of social life and exposed deceptions or misconceptions that caused difficulties in relationships in a family, between spouses, parents and children, and in the society as a whole. Among other things, he critically reflected on the behaviour of women and men in certain life situations and analysed the preconditions for such behaviour. Criminal proceedings were later terminated due to the amendment of the law, however, the court stated that the applicant’s guilt had been proven. 30/08/2019, Tula Regional Court None, despite the fact that proceedings were discontinued, the courts stated that the applicant was guilty Inadequate reasoning of the courts, no detailed assessment of statements or citations Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia , no.   42168/06, §   113, 3   October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)     41853/23 12/11/2023 Ivan Yuryevich PAVLOV 1971   Yekaterina Mikhaylovna Shmygina Voronezh On 16/07/2021 access to the applicant’s entire website was restricted pursuant to a take-down request from the Prosecutor General’s office on the grounds that the website republished materials from an “undesirable organisation”. The request did not indicate the offending materials or their URL addresses. 13/07/2023, Supreme Court of Russia Access to the website blocked excessive breadth of blocking measures OOO Flavus and Others v.   Russia , nos.   12468/15 and 2 others, 23   June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)     17835/24 20/06/2024 OOO NOVYYE VREMENA 2013   Tumas Arsenovich Misakyan Moscow On 26/02/2022 Russian authorities requested the applicant media organisation to remove three war reports from its website. Despite the applicant’s compliance with this request, access to the entire website newtimes.ru was subsequently blocked. 20/02/2024, Supreme Court of Russia Access to the website blocked excessive scope of the blocking measures OOO Flavus and Others v.   Russia , nos.   12468/15 and 2 others, 23   June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)