CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3FE17F4 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2AAF4A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8pt } .s4009AD63 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1B7C2278 { width:122.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s3F9D134 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s23934418 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sF157F5DF { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sAAD669EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s9F55A481 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCBCF17E7 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt } .sB1607793 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s5ED6B251 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:top } .s4B8EF37A { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:top } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA3015A6F { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt } .s497554F4 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt } .sC61DB6F0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:top } .s83F13049 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt } .s5CCE9C3F { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:3.12pt; padding-left:3.12pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } THIRD SECTION CASE OF ANDREY RYLKOV FOUNDATION AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 37949/18 and 84 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 11 (read in the light of Art 10) • Freedom of association • Designation of applicant NGOs as “undesirable” not “prescribed by law”, being both unforeseeable and arbitrary • Legal uncertainty • Absence of explicit criteria for classifying activities of foreign or international NGOs as “undesirable” and lack of sufficient safeguards against abuse • No requirement under domestic law to communicate designation decision or grounds for such designation • Impossibility for an organisation to refute findings or outcome of assessment prior to enactment of prohibitions on its activities that automatically ensued from designation • Domestic courts’ failure to carry out rigorous substantive scrutiny and to balance competing interests • Judicial review transformed into a procedural formality Art 10 and Art 11 • Freedom of expression • Freedom of association • Unjustified prosecution and conviction of remaining applicants for “involvement” in activities of “undesirable” organisations • “Quality of law” requirement not met • Absence of explicit criteria for classifying applicants’ conduct as prosecutable • Domestic courts’ failure to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons • Retrospective application of the relevant law in an unforeseeable manner imposing impossible and unreasonable burden on applicants to foresee future designations • Disproportionate “chilling effect” • Applicants sanctioned on purely formal grounds   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 18 June 2024 FINAL   18/09/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd,   Diana Kovatcheva , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the eighty-five applications (see application numbers in the Appendix) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by individual applicants and applicant organisations (“the applicants”) on the dates listed in the Appendix; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the designation of non-governmental organisations as “undesirable” and the prosecution for engaging in the activities of such organisations, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the observations submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Ukrainian Government in application no.   44688/21, and by the Czech Government in application no.   32572/23; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule   29 §   2 of the Rules of the Court (see Kutayev v.   Russia , no.   17912/15, §§   5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the Russian authorities’ designation of four applicant non-governmental organisations as “undesirable” and the prosecution of applicants for engaging in the activities of “undesirable” organisations. THE FACTS LEGAL REGULATION OF “UNDESIRABLE ORGANISATIONS” 2 .     In 2015 Russian legislation created the novel category of “undesirable organisations” (see paragraph 56 below). The amendments conferred upon the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) the power to designate any non ‑ Russian or international non-governmental organisation (NGO) as “undesirable”, following consultation with Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The designation applies if it has been determined that the organisation undermines the foundations of the Russian constitutional order, defence capabilities, or national security of Russia. 3.     Subsequent to this designation, an “undesirable organisation” is, by operation of law, prohibited from having offices or implementing projects in Russia, using accounts in Russian banks, or disseminating any content through media or the Internet. The organisation’s website shall be blocked within Russia. Since 2021 an additional restriction has been imposed, prohibiting Russian nationals from participating in the activities of an “undesirable organisation”, even when resident outside Russia (see paragraph   57 below). 4.     Failure to comply with these restrictions incurs administrative and criminal liabilities (see paragraphs 60 and 61 below). A first-time offence of participating in the activities of an “undesirable organisation” is punishable by a fine under Article   20.33 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). Repeat offenders, and also individuals who engage in fundraising for “undesirable organisations” or who organise their operation, face a range of criminal penalties including fines, compulsory labour, and imprisonment. 5.     The authority to maintain a register of “undesirable organisations” lies with the Ministry of Justice. The list of undesirable organisations published on the Ministry’s website comprised, as on 15   April 2024, over 150   organisations of the following types: major international funders of human rights organisations (Open Society Foundation, European Endowment for Democracy, National Endowment for Democracy, GlobalGiving), human rights organisations (Transparency International, European Platform for Democratic Elections, CEELI Institute, Agora-Law Sofia Foundation), think tanks (Chatham House, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars), faith organisations (Falun Dafa, New Generation Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses), student and academic exchange organisations (Central European University, Deutsch-Russischer Austausch, Bard College, Brīvā Universitāte), Russian-language media organisations (Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, Medusa, Project Media, The Insider, iStories, Novaja Gazeta-Europe, TV Rain), environment protection organisations (WWF, Greenpeace) and trade unions (International Transport Workers’ Federation). APPLICANT ORGANISATIONS DESIGNATED AS UNDESIRABLE Free Russia Foundation (application no.   26953/21) 6.     The applicant organisation, Free Russia Foundation, is a non-profit, non-stock corporation incorporated in Delaware, United States of America, in 2014, with offices in Washington DC, Kyiv, and Tbilisi. The Free Russia Foundation “informs US policymakers in real-time about events in Russia and supports the formulation of an effective and sustainable policy towards Russia in the US”. It also aids the Russian diaspora, with a particular focus on those “who have recently left Russia due to significant deterioration in the political and economic situation”. 7 .     On 27   June 2019 the GPO designated the Free Russia Foundation as an “undesirable organisation” on the grounds, in particular, that the Foundation’s board included former employees of the US State Department and USAID. The Foundation was also seen as interfering with Russia’s affairs, discrediting its leaders, and influencing public opinion about the need for governmental change, including by means of “colour revolutions”. In pursuance of those aims, Foundation experts prepared analytical reports to justify sanctions against Russia and increase anti-Russian rhetoric. These reports highlighted Russia’s cyberattacks against the US and their allies, targeted joint Russian-EU projects, criticised Russia’s socio-economic development, and exposed Russian leadership’s links with organised crime. The Foundation, in partnership with the National Endowment for Democracy – another “undesirable organisation”, hosted discussions supporting the democracy movement and civic initiatives in Russia. Moreover, the Foundation protested against human rights violations in Crimea and called for additional pressure brought to bear on the Russian government. Reports depicted Russia as an aggressor State that required political and military deterrence. The Foundation’s initiatives in Georgia and Ukraine aimed to consolidate opposition to Russian influence and trained activists for protests. The Foundation initiated a Coalition for the Release of the Kremlin’s Political Prisoners, seen as jeopardising Russia’s constitutional order and national security. 8.     On 25   September 2019 the Foundation applied for a judicial review of the designation, raising objections about the absence of any advance notice of the decision and the lack of an opportunity to provide an explanation. The Foundation emphasised that neither it nor its staff had engaged in illegal activities within Russia or other states and had not faced any prosecutions or received warnings. It highlighted that the law failed to establish transparent and predictable criteria for labelling an organisation as “undesirable” and asserted that the GPO’s decision lacked substantial reasoning. 9.     On 25   December 2019 the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow dismissed the complaint. It reiterated the opening passages of the prosecutor’s decision and held it to be “adequately reasoned”. It also made reference to a report from the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”), dated 29   May 2019, which concluded that the Foundation’s activities “posed a threat to the foundations of Russia’s constitutional order and national security”. Ultimately, the court determined that the Foundation had been involved in political activities in Russia by openly supporting the “democratic opposition” and releasing analytical reports aimed at “weakening the incumbent President’s standing’ during the 2018 presidential election campaign”. 10.     A letter dated 24   May 2019 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the GPO about the Foundation was presented during the District Court proceedings, but it was not mentioned in the judgment. The letter characterised the Foundation as a “Russophobic platform” in the US, engaging in “clear destructive activities” against Russia. The Ministry admitted its lack of comprehensive information to label the Foundation’s activities as a threat to Russia’s constitutional order, defence, or security. Nonetheless, it expressed no objections to the Foundation’s inclusion in the undesirable organisations list if “other competent authorities possessed such information”. 11.     In their appeal, the Foundation primarily cited a procedural violation in designating it as an undesirable organisation. The above letter suggested that the “competent foreign-policy body” (see paragraph 2 above) lacked sufficient information to warrant the designation. 12.     On 22   July 2020 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment, without addressing the appeal’s arguments. Subsequent cassation appeals were dismissed by the Second Cassation Court on 25   November 2020 and the Supreme Court of Russia on 19   February 2021. Ukrainian World Congress and Vinnik (application no.   44688/21) 13.     The applicant organisation, the Ukrainian World Congress, is a not ‑ for-profit corporation based in Toronto, Canada, with missions in Kyiv, Brussels, and New York. As the largest international coordinating body for Ukrainian communities abroad, it works to promote global solidarity and representation for Ukrainian interests. It fosters a network of over thirty member organisations supporting Ukrainian heritage and advocating for Ukraine’s independence, territorial integrity, and prosperity. In 2003 the United Nations Economic and Social Council granted it special consultative status, and in 2018, it achieved participatory status as a non-governmental organisation with the Council of Europe. 14.     The applicant, Mr   Vinnik, is the Regional Vice-President of the applicant organisation and its legal representative in Russia. 15.     On 24   November 2010 and 18   May 2012 the Supreme Court of Russia liquidated the Federal National Cultural Autonomy of Ukrainians in Russia and the Union of Ukrainians in Russia, the two principal coordinating bodies for Ukrainians in Russia. In 2013 the Ministry of Justice twice dismissed applications for the registration of a Russian organisation, the Ukrainian Congress in Russia, on ostensibly technical grounds. On 23   March 2014 a Canadian Vice-President of the applicant organisation was barred from entering Russia in retaliation for Canadian sanctions against Russia, imposed due to the unlawful occupation of Crimea. From 31   July 2018 to 24   October 2019, on six separate occasions, the Ministry of Justice rejected Mr   Vinnik’s applications for the registration of a Russian member organisation of the Ukrainian World Congress. 16 .     On 11   July 2019 the GPO declared the applicant organisation undesirable, citing an array of alleged “anti-Russian activities”. Those included advocating for a change of government in Russia and the return of Crimea to Ukraine, calls to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons and to strengthen sanctions against Russia, revising the shared history of Russia and Ukraine, undermining Orthodoxy in Ukraine, halting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction, and limiting the use of the Russian language in Ukraine’s cultural domain. The organisation was accused of advancing these initiatives through multiple avenues, such as initiating discussions during the organisation President’s visits, his speaking at international forums such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Commission, staging anti-Russian campaigns including the “Red Card for Putin” during the FIFA World Cup, partnering with other undesirable organisations, and promoting controversial ideas such as the return of Crimea via leadership of associated organisations. 17.     The applicant organisation, represented by Mr   Vinnik, sought a judicial review of the decision, asserting that none of its peaceful, lawful activities, statements or working methods constituted a threat to Russia’s constitutional order or security. It submitted that the designation was politically motivated, forming part of a broader policy by Russian authorities to suppress the Ukrainian community in Russia. 18.     On 11   March 2020 the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow dismissed the complaint. The court did not engage with the organisation’s arguments, instead reiterating the contents of the GPO’s decision, which it deemed lawful and sufficiently motivated. On 22   July 2020 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal. The final decision was given on 12   May 2021 by the Supreme Court of Russia. 19.     In parallel, administrative offence proceedings under Article   20.33 of the CAO were conducted against Mr   Vinnik. 20 .     By a judgment of 10   September 2020, a magistrate of the Pervomayskiy Court Circuit in Omsk fined him 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for representing an undesirable organisation in court, discussing its activities with local organisations, and maintaining contacts with the management of an undesirable organisation. On 12   October 2020 the Pervomayskiy District Court rejected Mr   Vinnik’s appeal against the conviction. 21 .     By a judgment of 3   September 2021, upheld on appeal on 5   October 2021, a magistrate of the same court circuit fined Mr   Vinnik RUB   7,000 on the basis that, by accessing the website of the Ukrainian World Congress, the police were able to document that he was listed as the Congress’s Regional Vice-President and had taken part in video calls concerning its activities. Association of Schools of Political Studies of the Council of Europe (application no.   53201/22) 22.     The applicant association, uniting twenty-one schools of political studies, mainly in Southern and Eastern Europe, was established as a non ‑ profit association under French law in Strasbourg in 2008. According to its constitution, the applicant association aims to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law and has no profit-making, political or religious purpose (Article   2). 23.     On 22   December 2020 the GPO designated the applicant association undesirable. The Ministry of Justice published the decision online on 25   December 2020. The applicant association only received a copy of the GPO’s decision after initiating judicial review proceedings. 24 .     The GPO’s decision referred to the inclusion of the Russian member of the applicant association, the Moscow Schools of Political Studies, in a register of foreign agents. The decision further stated that the applicant association had held seminars on freedom of speech and media, rule of law and civil society, at which the “domestic and foreign policy of the Russian Federation were critically discussed”. These included characterising Russian presence in Crimea as “occupation” and “aggression”. According to the decision, a “secession of Chechnya from the Russian Federation was suggested”. The decision criticised the support for protests expressed by a member of the Prague Civil Society Centre at one of the seminars. The decision further referred to the convictions of the participants in the applicant association’s seminars for participation in unauthorised manifestations. The decision claimed that the applicant association was financed by other organisations declared “undesirable” in Russia. It concluded that the applicant association interfered with Russia’s internal affairs and posed a threat to the Russian constitutional order because its alumni advocated for the “European model of democracy”. 25.     The consent of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also obtained in the course of the judicial review proceedings, was limited to a statement that the designation as undesirable would not be contrary to the foreign policy objectives of the Russian Federation. 26.     Following the publication of the decision, the Russian telecoms regulator blocked access to the applicant association’s website in Russia and unsuccessfully asked Twitter to take down its account. 27.     On 14   July 2021 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow rejected an application for a judicial review. The judgment referred to the listing of the Moscow School of Political Studies as a “foreign agent” and the financing of the applicant association by other undesirable organisations. The District Court further noted the intervention of a member of the Prague Civil Society Centre where she praised protests in Russia, Armenia, Georgia, and Ukraine. The District Court inferred therefrom that the applicant association encouraged protests and trained protest activists with the express aim of violating regulations on demonstrations and resisting police officers. A mention of the alleged call for the secession of Chechnya was also made, without specifying who, when and in what capacity had made that call. 28.     On 1   December 2021 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal. The final decision was issued by the Supreme Court of Russia on 6   July 2022. Společnost svobody informace, z.s. (application no.   32572/23) 29.     The applicant association, Society for the Freedom of Information, is a non-profit association registered under the laws of the Czech Republic for promoting transparency and free access to information in public interest. 30.     On 26   June 2021 the GPO declared the applicant association undesirable. The Ministry of Justice published the decision online on 9   July 2021. The applicant association was only able to access the text of the GPO’s decision after initiating judicial review proceedings. 31 .     The decision alleged that the applicant association received financial support from entities deemed “undesirable” in Russia, including the National Endowment for Democracy and the Open Society Foundation. It was further claimed that the association conducted its activities through two Russian entities: the Institute for the Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI), which had been designated as a “foreign agent”, and an unregistered association of Russian lawyers and journalists known as Team   29. The decision referred to the IDFI’s online projects that facilitated access to government information and archives of Soviet secret services. These projects included compiling an openness rating of governing bodies, offering a critical assessment of Russian legislation, and advocating for legislative changes. Moreover, the decision highlighted a series of publications on Team   29’s website. These publications included a video that criticised the amendments to the Russian Constitution, which permitted President Putin to seek a fifth term and defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Other publications were critical of the Constitutional Court’s blanket endorsement of these amendments, highlighted a lack of ambition in the programmes of Russian political parties, and provided guidance for Russian NGOs affected by new “foreign-agent” restrictions. According to the GPO’s decision, these activities and publications undermined public confidence in Russia’s political and judicial systems, fostered opposition to the lawful actions of State authorities, discredited the Russian leadership, and influenced public opinion towards a change in government. 32.     The applicant association initiated a judicial review of the GPO’s decision at the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. On 18   February 2022 the District Court dismissed the complaint, essentially endorsing the GPO’s reasoning and concluding that the applicant association’s activities posed a threat to Russia’s national security. 33.     The applicant association appealed against that judgment, arguing that the first-instance court failed to assess the publications and activities in question in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s case-law. On 17   August 2022 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal. 34.     The applicant association’s further appeals on points of law were dismissed by the Second Court of Cassation on 21   December 2022 and the Supreme Court on 3   April 2023. APPLICANTS CONVICTED FOR THEIR INVOLVEMENT WITH “UNDESIRABLE ORGANISATIONS” Conviction for involvement with the Open Society Foundation 35.     On 1   December 2015 the Open Society Foundation, formerly the Open Society Institute (OSI), a US-based grantmaking network that supports civil society groups around the world, along with the OSI Assistance Foundation, were among the first organisations to be designated as “undesirable”. 36 .     The applicant foundation, Andrey Rylkov Foundation for Health Protection and Social Justice (application no.   37949/18), is a Russian NGO, advocating for human drug policies, protecting the rights and health of drug users through strategic litigation and harm reduction programmes, and promoting the use of replacement therapy which is banned in Russia. 37.     On 11   October 2017 a prosecutor in Moscow accessed a publication titled “Pre-trial detention should not be a health hazard” on the applicant foundation’s website. Uploaded on 25   June 2011, the publication had remained unchanged since that date. The prosecutor documented the presence of an active hyperlink in the publication, leading to the OSI’s Global Campaign for Pretrial Justice on the OSI’s website. Based on this, the applicant foundation was charged under Article   20.33 of the CAO for disseminating the materials of an undesirable organisation. 38.     On 13   November 2017 a magistrate of the Shchukino Court Circuit in Moscow found the applicant foundation guilty as charged and fined it RUB   50,000. 39.     In the grounds of appeal, the applicant foundation argued that the link in question had been published on their website four years before the OSI was declared an undesirable organisation. Consequently, the crucial element of intentionality was missing. Nor could they be held liable for a lack of due diligence since no law obligates them to go through all previously posted information and expunge references to organisations newly designated as undesirable. 40 .     On 5   February 2018 the Khoroshevskiy District Court in Moscow upheld the judgment on appeal. The court held that the offence had occurred on 11   October 2017, on the day the prosecutor had accessed the website and consisted in “making the said hyperlink and web resources freely available to an unlimited number of users”. The prosecutor’s documentation constituted, in the court’s view, sufficient evidence of the offence. 41 .     On 24   September 2019 another applicant organisation, Young Journalists of the Altay Region (application no.   34258/20), was likewise fined for maintaining an inactive link to the OSI’s webpage which had been present on its website since 1999 (see the Appendix for details). Conviction for involvement with Open Russia 42.     Open Russia is a name shared by several organisations founded by Mr   Mikhail Khodorkovskiy to promote democracy and human rights. The first organisation existed from 2001 to 2006. It was closed when the Russian authorities froze its bank accounts. 43 .     On 12   November 2016 the organisation was relaunched as the public network movement Open Russia ( Общественное сетевое движение Открытая Россия ) at the inaugural conference held in Helsinki, Finland, where its manifesto and articles of association were adopted. According to the articles of association, the Open Russia movement “carries out its activities in the territory of the Russian Federation in accordance with the Russian Constitution and applicable Russian legislation” (section   1.2) and has the permanent seat of its governing body in Moscow (section   1.6). Participation in the movement is open to adult Russian nationals who support the goals of the movement (section   6.2). 44 .     On 26   April 2017 the GPO expanded the list of undesirable organisations by adding two organisations identified as “Open Russia Civil Movement, Open Russia (Public Network Movement Open Russia) (Great Britain)” and “OR (Otkrytaya Rossiya) (Great Britain)”. 45 .     On the same day the GPO’s spokesperson told the media outlet Ekho Moskvy that “the measures targeted exclusively the organisations registered in the [Great] Britain” and that the GPO “had no issues with the activities of the Russian public network movement Open Russia”. 46 .     A majority of the individual applicants have been prosecuted and convicted for their involvement with the Russian network movement Open Russia. The details of their cases are summarised in the Appendix. 47.     The largest single group of convictions, comprising the cases of thirty ‑ three applicants, was issued for their participation in the Federal Forum for Independent Municipal Councillors, known as “Municipal Russia”. The forum was convened on 13   March 2021 in Moscow, where elected officials from municipal, regional and city councils assembled in a hotel to engage in discussions and listen to presentations by opposition politicians on various subjects from elections to municipal governance. 48.     Shortly after the opening of the forum, during a speech by applicant Mr   Royzman (no.   47495/21), the police arrived and told the attendees to disperse, threatening arrest otherwise. Subsequently, the applicants were detained, taken to a police station for interrogation, and charged with involvement in the activities of Open Russia. Following the charges, they were released. Their cases were referred to justices of the peace at their places of residence. 49.     In their defence, the applicants submitted that the forum was a peaceful political assembly which was violently disrupted by the police. The venue was arranged and paid for by applicant Ms   Usmanova (no.   31236/21), a private individual, rather than by any “undesirable organisation”. In any event, a Russian entity named Open Russia had not been declared undesirable, while the charges against the applicants made no reference to the “undesirable” British organisation Open Russia Civil Movement. 50 .     All the courts hearing the applicants’ cases found them guilty as charged, imposing fines for the amounts detailed in the Appendix. The courts held that Ms   Usmanova had arranged the venue as a coordinator for the “undesirable” Open Russia Civil Movement, of which a report compiled by a police officer upon examining the organisation’s social media accounts was sufficient evidence. 51.     The other convictions related to Open Russia illustrate a spectrum of activities deemed objectionable by the Russian authorities, including organisational involvement, online activities, public activism, and the spreading of information (see the Appendix for details). 52 .     In particular, online activities for which the applicants were prosecuted included the sharing, and hyperlinking to, Open Russia’s website and content on various online platforms (see, e.g., Ms   Malysheva, no.   40948/18, Mr   Grigoryev, no.   41009/18, and North Caucasus Environment Watch and Mr   Rudomakha, nos.   31967/20 and 34206/20), managing and administrating Open Russia’s social media groups or pages (see, e.g., Mr   Ibragimov, no.   24019/19, and Mr   Zaytsev, no.   48765/19), and the reposting of videos, articles, and other materials branded with Open Russia’s logo or message (see, e.g., Mr   Malyavin, no.   5907/20; Mr   Vernikov, no.   49203/19; Mr   Glukhov, no.   17919/22; and Ms   Fedotova, no.   6421/21). 53.     Membership and organisational involvement for which applicants were held liable included board membership, regional coordination, and election to committees within Open Russia (see, e.g., Mr   Savvin, no.   45990/18; Ms   Zaprudina, no.   8570/19; and Mr   Vernikov, no.   25441/19), and also involvement in setting up, organising, or participating in forums, seminars, and meetings having an actual or presumed association with Open Russia (see, e.g., Ms   Shevchenko, nos.   45567/18 and 11702/19; Mr   Klimov, no.   12170/19; Mr   Shaposhnikov, no.   14731/20; and Ms   Murakhtayeva, no.   15444/20), and providing venues for these gatherings (see Mr   Iosilevich, no.   26953/21). 54 .     Public activism and protests included staging solo and group protests linked to Open Russia, public demonstrations of dissent or support for various causes associated with the organisation (see, e.g., Mr   Kravchenko, no.   43290/18; Ms   Ravilova, no.   13034/20; and Mr   Yarotskiy, no.   12215/20), and engaging in broader political activism and campaigning, which included satirical content and criticism of electoral processes (see, e.g., Mr   Klimov, no.   35211/19, and Mr   Glukhov, no.   17919/22). 55.     On 27   May 2021 the board of Open Russia decided to liquidate the organisation, closing all regional offices, and cancelling the membership of all members in order to protect them from criminal prosecution. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK Procedure for designating an NGO as an undesirable organisation 56 .     Section   3.1(1) of Federal Law no.   272-FZ of 28   December 2012, introduced by Federal Law no.   129-FZ of 23   May 2015 (“the Undesirable Organisations Act”) and further amended on 27   December 2018 and 28   June 2021, establishes that any activities undertaken by a foreign or international non-governmental organisation (NGO) that threaten to undermine Russia’s constitutional order, national defence or State security may lead to the NGO being designated as undesirable in Russia. These activities may include actions that support or oppose candidates in an election, instigate a referendum, or aim to influence the outcome of an election or referendum. 57 .     Once designated as undesirable, the organisation will be prohibited from opening new structural units in Russia, and existing structural units are liable to closure. The organisation will be restricted from using accounts in Russian banks, engaging in property transactions, producing, distributing, or storing any materials in print or online, and carrying out any programmes or projects within Russia. Since the 2021 amendments Russian nationals and legal entities have been additionally barred from involvement in the activities of undesirable organisations outside Russia (sections   3.1(3) and 3.2). 58.     The decision to designate an NGO as an undesirable organisation is made by the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”), in consultation with the relevant foreign-policy government agency (section   4). 59.     The GPO’s decision is then forwarded to the Ministry of Justice, for inclusion in a register of undesirable organisations and publication on the Ministry’s website (sections   6 to 8). Administrative and criminal sanctions 60 .     Article   20.33 of the Code of Administrative Offences, as amended on 28   June 2021, punishes any involvement in the activities of an undesirable organisation or any violation of the restrictions on its activities by a fine ranging between RUB   5,000 to 15,000 for individuals, RUB   20,000 to 50,000 for officials, and RUB   50,000 to 100,000 for legal entities. 61 .     Article   284.1 of the Criminal Code, as amended on 1   July 2021, covers three separate criminal offences. Paragraph 1 punishes any involvement in the activities of an undesirable organisation by a person convicted under Article   20.33 of the Code of Administrative Offences with fines, compulsory labour, or imprisonment of up to four years. Paragraph 2 punishes any fundraising or provision of financial services to an undesirable organisation with fines, compulsory labour up to four years or imprisonment of up to four years. Finally, paragraph   3 punishes any organisation of activities of an undesirable organisation by fines, compulsory labour or imprisonment of up to six years. COUNCIL OF EUROPE 62.     On 10-11   June 2016 the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) adopted Opinion no.   814/2015 on the compatibility with international standards on human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Law on “undesirable foreign and international organisations” (CDL-AD(2016)020). 63.     The Commission was of the opinion that “because of the lack of specific criteria/prohibitions for misconduct of NGOs and the vague and imprecise terms as to the grounds on the basis of which the activities of a foreign or international NGO may be deemed ‘undesirable’, the Federal Law cannot be considered as in compliance with the requirement of legality under Article   11(2) ECHR” (paragraphs   39-41). 64.     It further noted procedural shortcomings of the law in that (i) the GPO enjoyed wide discretion when making its decision on the inclusion in the list due to a lack of clarity of the concept of “undesirable activities”; (ii)   there was no prior judicial review or any form of warning to the NGO concerned; and (iii)   there was no explicit obligation for the General Prosecutor to give reasons for his decision, to publish the decision or to notify it to the NGO concerned (paragraphs   44-48). 65 .     The new provisions on administrative and criminal offences also lacked precision because they did not specify which forms of participation in the activities of undesired NGOs would be penalised, and this absence “could qualify virtually any action as falling under the scope of this law” (paragraph   57). 66.     The severe administrative fines and in particular criminal sanctions may have a potential to deter those involved in civic activity, and the public at large from participating in an open debate on social media. The chilling effect of the severe penalties was further amplified by the vaguely-worded legislation which failed to give a precise legal definition for what constituted “participation in the activities” and what actions constituted a breach of law in case of an individual associated with the conduct of an “undesirable organisation” (paragraph   58). UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 67 .     The report of the Special Rapporteur Mariana Katzarova on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, presented at the fifty ‑ fourth session of the Human Rights Council on 11 September-6   October 2023 (A/HRC/54/54), addressed restrictive legislation targeting civil society including the legislation on “undesirable organisations”. The report noted that “the absence of clear definitions in the law [made] it applicable to a wide range of organizations”, that “the designation [did] not require a ground for the decision”, and that “organizations found to be ‘undesirable’ learn[ed] about the decision [ex] post facto”. It further observed that “over the course of eight years under the ‘undesirable organizations’ law, no organization has been removed from the list or successfully challenged its designation as ‘undesirable’” (paragraphs   28-30). THE LAW MATTERS OF PROCEDURE Joinder of the applications 68.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Consequences of the Government’s failure to participate in the proceedings 69.     The Court further notes that the respondent Government, by failing to submit any written observations, manifested an intention to abstain from participating in the examination of the case. However, the cessation of a Contracting Party’s membership in the Council of Europe does not release it from its duty to cooperate with the Convention bodies. Consequently, the Government’s failure to engage in the proceedings cannot constitute an obstacle to the examination of the case (see Svetova and Others v.   Russia , no.   54714/17, §§   29-31, 24   January 2023). Procedural succession in application no.   15444/20 70.     Following the death of Ms   Murakhtayeva during the proceedings before the Court, her husband and sole heir, Mr   Aleksey Murakhtayev, expressed the wish to pursue the application she had initially filed. 71.     The Court has previously recognised the right of a deceased applicant’s next-of-kin to proceed with the application provided that they express a wish to pursue the proceedings and have a legitimate interest in the matter (see, most recently, Macatė v.   Lithuania [GC], no.   61435/19, §§   133 ‑ 35, 23   January 2023). In the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Mr   Murakhtayev may pursue the application. Representation in cases nos.   48124/22, 53201/22 and 32572/23 72.     The Court notes that applications nos.   48124/22, 53201/22 and 32572/23 were lodged after 16   September 2022. The applicants in these cases have been represented by lawyers admitted to practise in Russia. However, once Russia ceased to be a Member State, the Russian lawyers no longer satisfied one of the criteria set out in Rule   36 §   4 (a) of the Rules of Court, namely that they be “authorised to practice in any of the Contracting Parties”. Despite these circumstances, the Court considers that in the interests of administration of justice lawyers admitted to practise in Russia may continue to represent the applicants in cases lodged against that former Member State. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 10 AND 11 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT ORGANISATIONS DE