CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 2 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   1488/16 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SOKOLOV and Others against Russia and 6 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 7 November 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 RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia , no.   44561/11, 11 May 2021; Taganrog LRO and Others v.   Russia , nos. 32401/10 and 19   others, 7 June 2022; Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia , no.   42168/06, §   113, 3   October 2017; OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia , nos.   12468/15 and 2   others, 23   June 2020; and Savva Terentyev v. Russia , no.   10692/09, 28   August 2018).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of 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   Representative’s name and location Summary of facts Final decision Date Name of the court Penalty (award, fine, imprisonment) Legal issues Relevant case-law Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     1488/16* 29/12/2015 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SOKOLOV 1987   Kirill Vladimirovich BARABASH 1977   Yuriy Ignatyevich MUKHIN 1949   Valeriy Nikolayevich PARFENOV 1974   Mjriana Visentin Lainate The applicant Mr   Sokolov was convicted of extremism, because he participated in a public association, which promoted the idea of a referendum on amendments to the Constitution and attempted to organise. Moscow City Court, 21/12/2017 4 years’ imprisonment Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued;   Excessively broad interpretation of the notion of "extremism" RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no.   44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts),   Taganrog LRO and Others v.   Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19   others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention - 28/07/2015-29/12/2015 (time of lodging of the complaint) - lack of sufficient and convincing reasons justifying the need for pre-trial detention, standardised and generic reasoning in judicial decisions,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – Detention order of 29/07/2015 reviewed on 19/08/2015 (over 20 days); Detention order of 21/09/2015 reviewed on 19/10/2015 (over 20 days),   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 28/07/2015-29/12/2015 (time of lodging of the complaint) - the length of detention was not justified in the view of the reasons advanced     10325/18* 22/02/2018 Roman Gennadyevich GRISHIN 1983     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted of using his social media profile for incitement of hatred by re ‑ posting of video material critical of the Russian authorities’ and Orthodox Church’s support of separatism in Ukraine. Kaluga Regional Court, 22/08/2017 320 hours of compulsory works replaced with 40 days of colony Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no.   44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts),   Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no.   42168/06, §   113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)       16095/18 28/03/2018 Dmitriy Igorevich CHERNOMORCHENKO 1978       The web-portal ‘The Voice of Islam’ managed by the applicant was blocked on   11/02/2016 following the demand of the Prosecutor General’s Office due to publication of extremist material. The applicant was not made aware of which material was considered extremist until 15/06/2016, after taking down of the material the access to the web ‑ portal was restored on 07/07/2016. Supreme Court of Russia, 29/09/2017   Overbroad restriction;   Blocking of the web-portal without providing information on the specific content considered illegal RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no.   44561/11, §§   111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts),   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)       29965/18* 30/05/2018 Natalya Olegovna TELEGINA 1975   Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg The applicant was convicted of using her social media profile to incite hatred against Orthodox Christians by posting images and statements critical of them and the Orthodox Church. Altay Regional Court, 08/02/2018 2 years’ imprisonment (probation) / sanction annulled on 09/10/2018 due to the applicant’s good behaviour Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued   RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO   Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no.   44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts),   Dmitriyevskiy v.   Russia, no.   42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)       44815/18 06/09/2018 Vladimir Yuryevich SHIPITSYN 1969   Ernest Aleksandrovich Mezak Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou The applicant was convicted of waving a flag similar to the one of an extremist organisation at a public assembly. St Petersburg City Court, 06/03/2018 5 days’ administrative detention Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO   Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no.   44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – 25 ‑ 26/02/2018 - taking to the police station for the purpose of compiling an administrative offence report and detention there until trial     52959/18 23/10/2018 Olga Alekseyevna NIKITOVA 1977   Matvey Nikolayevich Tszen Moscow The applicant was convicted of dissemination of materials inciting enmity and hatred towards military and civil authorities of Russia and casting doubt on the defence capabilities of the military forces. Moscow City Court, 24/04/2018 1 year imprisonment (probation) Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts),   Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no.   10692/09, 28   August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech),   Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, §   113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)       56827/18* 24/11/2018 Vladimir Aleksandrovich TIMOSHENKO 1973   Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Sofia, Bulgaria The applicant was convicted of authoring and disseminating online public statements calling for "actions" to be taken against "corrupt-punitive apparatus", which was considered to imply the Russian authorities. St Petersburg City Court, 25/05/2018 2 years’ imprisonment Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code),   RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts),   Savva Terentyev v.   Russia, no.   10692/09, 28   August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech)