CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s1026EC2D { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF LOBACHEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 16041/19 and 6 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 February 2025       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Lobacheva and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8.     In an earlier case concerning overly broad definition of “extremism” in Russian law (see   Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russi a , nos. 32401/10 and 19   others, §§   152-59, 7 June 2022), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the determination of the criminal charges against the applicants by the domestic courts did not provide adequate and effective safeguards against an excessively broad interpretation of the concept of “extremism”. Nor did the courts examine the matter in the light of the principles established in the Court’s case-law. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   10 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 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 Amount awarded for non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     16041/19 06/03/2019 Yelena Yuryevna LOBACHEVA 1965   Dzhulay Dmitriy Ivanovich Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article 282 of the Criminal Code for distribution of leaflets (1) addressed to the servicemen criticising Mr   Putin as a commander in chief and (2) addressed to Russia’s population and calling for Mr Putin’s impeachment. 02/10/2018 Moscow City Court Fine of RUB   100,000 The applicant’s criminal conviction was based on excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) 7,500     17254/19 18/03/2019 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich LESOVOY 1966   Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg The applicant was convicted under Article 280 of the Criminal Code for making calls to civil unrest in text messengers on Internet 02/10/2018 Kurgan Regional Court Two years’ prison sentence The applicant’s criminal conviction was based on excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) 7,500     24655/20 27/05/2020 Radislav Rafailovich FEDOROV 1983   Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan In 2017 and 2019 the applicant posted two videos on his page in a social network. The first one concerned the investigation into D.   Medvedev’s assets and the second one was about a shooting in a high school. The domestic courts considered, based on the forensic experts’ findings, that the videos amounted to extremist materials and found the applicant guilty of having incited hate and animosity and having degraded human dignity (Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences). 29/01/2020, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan Administrative fine of RUB   10,000 The applicant’s criminal conviction was based on excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) 7,500     22621/21 02/04/2021 Sergey Valeryevich TSARKOV 1989   Abashina Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow On 11 occasions the applicant was convicted under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences (mass distribution of extremist materials) for publication of photos of the Ukrainian Azov Military Unit and its logos on his page in VKontakte social network in 2015. 02/10/2020, Moscow City Court 02/10/2020. Moscow City Court 02/10/2020. Moscow City Court 02/10/2020. Moscow City Court 02/10/2020. Moscow City Court 02/10/2020. Moscow City Court 06/10/2020, Moscow City Court 06/10/2020. Moscow City Court 06/10/2020. Moscow City Court 06/10/2020. Moscow City Court 06/10/2020. Moscow City Court 11 administrative fines of RUB   1,000 each The applicant’s criminal conviction was based on excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos.   32401/10 and 19   others, §§ 158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) 7,500     1833/22 29/12/2021 Ayrat Akhnafovich DILMUKHAMETOV 1966   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted under Articles 280.1, 282.3, 280 and 205.2 of the Criminal Code for public calls for (1) Bashkortostan’s exit from the Russian Federation, (2) armed coup d’état, (3) violence in respect of ethnic Chechens, and for raising funds for those activities. 29/06/2021, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 9 years’ imprisonment The applicant’s criminal conviction was based on excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence; excessive severity of the sentence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos.   32401/10 and 19   others, §§ 158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), Olga Kudrina v. Russia, no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct) 7,500     14349/22 28/02/2022 Aleksey Aleksandrovich SEREGIN 1985   Protasov Vladimir Yuryevich Yoshkar - Ola The applicant was convicted under Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences for having reposted on his personal page in VKontakte social network a piece of news which contained a symbol of an organisation that would be later added to the extremist list. 03/09/2021, Supreme Court of the Mariy El Republic fine of RUB   1,500 The applicant’s criminal conviction was based on excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos.   32401/10 and 19   others, §§ 158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) 7,500     37597/22 20/07/2022 Sergey Fedorovich STROGONOV 1986   Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offence for posting a song on his page in VKontakte social network which had been classified by the authorities as extremist materials 21/03/2022, Krasnodar Regional Court 5 days’ administrative arrest The applicant’s criminal conviction was based on excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos.   32401/10 and 19   others, §§ 158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) 7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.