CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 février 2025

.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 } .s42D31D3 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:10pt; 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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3E9356B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCF5D1823 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .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 } .s4F6F0E53 { width:22.87pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6D3AF586 { width:135.42pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s57B28976 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:2.85pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFDC2308C { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding:2.85pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE3DA80B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s97D503DC { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding:2.85pt 5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6001BE9B { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:2.85pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECD123DC { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } THIRD SECTION CASE OF NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 11884/22 and 161 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Applicants’ prosecution in criminal and administrative proceedings and shutdown of applicant media organisations for “discrediting” Russian military and spreading “fake news” about its actions in Ukraine • Applicants subjected to various forms of sanctions for expressing views critical of those actions or disseminating information that diverged from official accounts • Conviction of two of the applicants by Crimean courts on the basis of Russian law not “lawful” • Domestic courts’ failure to analyse remaining applicants’ statements within their specific context or balance competing interests • Retrospective application of the law not foreseeable • Penalties of exceptional and disproportionate severity, fostering an environment of self-censorship • Disproportionate measures amounted to a broader campaign to suppress dissent regarding military action in Ukraine Art 34 • Hinder the exercise of the right of application • Failure to comply with interim measures indicated under Rule 39 Art 5 § 3 • Failure to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Detention employed as a pretext to silence one applicant’s expression of critical opinions indicating bad faith Art 5 § 4 • Speediness of review •Excessive delays in examination of detention appeals Art 3 • Degrading treatment • Confinement in metal cage and small glass cabin during detention hearings Art 8 • Home • Unjustified searches of journalists’ homes   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 11 February 2025   FINAL   11/05/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Mateja Đurović , judges ,   Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the one hundred and sixty-one 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 media organisations and individual applicants (“the applicants”) on the dates listed in the appendix; the decision to grant interim measures under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court in application no.   11884/22 (see paragraph 12 below); the partial inadmissibility decision concerning applications nos.   2156/23 and 7800/23 (see Pivkina and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos.   2134/23 and 6   others, 6   June 2023); the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and related complaints, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the applicants’ observations; the Ukrainian Government’s comments submitted under Article   36 §   1 of the Convention in applications nos.   45470/22, 464/23 and 1385/23; 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 14 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ prosecution in criminal and administrative proceedings and the shutdown of applicant media organisations for “discrediting” the Russian military and spreading “fake news” about its actions. THE FACTS I.         REPORTING RESTRICTIONS 2.     On 24   February 2022 the President of Russia announced the launch of a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine which he described as a “special military operation”. 3.     On the same day the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor, “the RKN”) posted the following information on its website: “... the RKN reminds the media and information resources that, when preparing materials and publications related to the special operation ... they are obliged to use information and data obtained only from official Russian sources ... Disseminating knowingly false information on the Internet will result in the immediate blocking of such materials ... It is recalled that only Russian official information sources have reliable and up-to-date information.” 4.     On 26   February 2022 the Prosecutor General’s Office (“the PGO”) issued a demand to the RKN and service providers to restrict access to war reports published by Russian independent media outlets. This demand was justified by the assertion that “the aforementioned news resources disseminate information, which is presented as reliable reports but does not correspond to reality, about the shelling of Ukrainian cities and the death of civilians as a result of actions by the Russian Army, and also characterise the ongoing operation as an attack, invasion, or declaration of war”. 5.     On 4   March 2022, within a single working day, the State Duma held an extraordinary meeting to approve in three readings, the Federation Council validated, and the President signed into law, amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) and the Criminal Code concerning the dissemination of knowingly false information about the deployment of the Russian Armed Forces, and public calls to prevent their deployment (Federal Law no.   31-FZ of 4   March 2022, see Domestic law below). 6.     On 6   March 2022 websites of independent Russian media, including   7x7, Mediazona , Sobesednik , Agentstvo and others, were blocked for their coverage of the war in Ukraine. Subsequently the RKN also blocked the websites of the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, BBC Russian Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other foreign media with Russian ‑ language content. 7.     On 16   March 2022 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in the context of a procedure launched under Article   8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, adopted Resolution CM/Res(2022)2, by which the Russian Federation ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe as from that date. II.       SHUTDOWN OF MEDIA ORGANISATIONS (n o .   11884/22) A.    Novaya Gazeta and Dmitriy Muratov 8 .     Novaya Gazeta was a Russian independent newspaper with an average weekly circulation of 300,000 copies and an online daily audience of about 3   million people. Mr   Muratov was its editor-in-chief. In 2021 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with Maria Ressa of the Philippines, “for their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression”. The Nobel Committee specifically commended Novaya Gazeta as being “the most independent newspaper in Russia today, with a fundamentally critical attitude towards power”. 9 .     On 26   February 2022 Novaya Gazeta received take-down requests (“TDR”) from the RKN and PGO concerning an editorial by Mr   Muratov, “ Novaya Gazeta against the war”, and a syndicated statement by independent media, “Pain, Anger and Shame. This War is Folly”. It was stated that the content of the publications was illegal because they contained “untrue information of public significance that the Russian Federation had launched full-fledged military hostilities. Whereas, according to the Ministry of Defence, the combined troops of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, with the support of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, are conducting a special military operation for the protection of the population of the region, and strikes are targeting only military infrastructure”. A judicial challenge to the TDRs was dismissed at first instance by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow on 5   August 2022 and by the Moscow City Court on appeal on 13   June 2023. 10 .     Between 26 February and 2   March 2022 Novaya Gazeta received four additional TDRs from the RKN. They mandated the removal of two daily live feeds about the war in Ukraine, a five-day summary of events and the news about the shelling of Kharkiv and Chernihiv. According to the RKN, the materials contained false information “about the alleged invasion of Russian troops into Ukraine”. The RKN stated that, “according to official Russian sources, including the Ministry of Defence, that information does not correspond to reality, instils panic among people and creates conditions for mass disorders and violations of public safety”. On 15   June 2022 the Tverskoy District Court, and on 25   April 2023 the Moscow City Court on appeal, dismissed an appeal against the TDRs. 11.     On 4   March 2022 Novaya Gazeta , faced with the threat of complete blocking and criminal prosecution, was compelled to remove independently the remaining materials published from 24 February to 4 March which contained coverage of the military hostilities or used the term “war” for its description. 12 .     On 8   March 2022 the Court examined Novaya Gazeta ’s request for interim measures under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court. The Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings, considering the exceptional context in which the request was lodged, to indicate to the Government of Russia “to abstain until further notice from actions and decisions aimed at fully blocking and terminating the activities of Novaya Gazeta , and from other actions that, in the current circumstances, could deprive Novaya Gazeta of the enjoyment of its rights guaranteed by Article   10 of the Convention”. 13.     On 28   March 2022 the editorial office of Novaya Gazeta decided to temporarily suspend the production of both printed and electronic editions, citing the impossibility of operating under current reporting restrictions. 14.     In May 2022 the RKN charged Novaya Gazeta with disseminating “fake news”, an offence under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO. The charges related to Mr   Muratov’s editorial and the syndicated appeal which referred to “war” instead of the official term “special military operation” (see paragraph   9 above) and to a first-person account by journalist Ms   Kostyuchenko, who had witnessed the shelling of residential areas in Kherson and seen Russian troops shoot at and abduct protesters at an anti-occupation rally. On 6 July, 10 August and 14   September 2022 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow found the newspaper guilty as charged and imposed fines ranging from 300,000 to 350,000 Russian roubles (RUB). On 9 and 20 June and 27   July 2023 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeals. 15.     On 22   July 2022 and other dates the RKN blocked access to the websites www.novayagazeta.ru, www.novaya.no and www.novaya.media, alleging a “repeated publication of information aimed at discrediting the actions of the Russian State authorities in the special operation in Ukraine”, without further details. The blocking measures were appealed against to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, which upheld them as lawful on 15   December 2022 and 4 and 18   April 2023. On 19   October 2023 and 31   January and 27   February 2024 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeals. 16 .     On 5   September 2022 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow suspended the publishing licence of Novaya Gazeta for an alleged failure to submit a copy of the editorial office’s charter twenty years ago. On 7   February 2023 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal against the suspension decision. 17 .     On 15   September 2022 the Supreme Court of Russia granted the RKN’s application to terminate the operation of the online version of Novaya Gazeta due to the editorial office receiving two warnings. On 22   December 2022 the appellate board of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal from the founder and the editorial office of the online media. B.    Dozhd TV and Natalya Sindeyeva 18.     Dozhd TV (Rain TV) was a Russian independent television channel launched in 2010 with an annual audience of about 18 million people. It had a website, a YouTube channel, and a presence on major social media platforms. Ms   Sindeyeva was its founder and director general. 19.     On 26   February 2022 the RKN notified Dozhd TV that, based on a TDR, it was restricting access to a publication on its website concerning the first civilian casualties of the Russian shelling of Ukrainian cities. It was stated that the “publications ... contained knowingly untrue information about the use of the Russian Armed Forces, their shelling of cities, and civilian casualties, including minors”. 20.     On 1   March 2022 the RKN sent another TDR, alleging that the channel’s website contained untrue information about “the goals of the special military operation on the territory of Ukraine, the forms and methods of conducting combat operations, the losses among the Russian troops, shelling, and casualties among [Ukrainian] civilians.” On the same day the RKN blocked access to the tvrain.ru website. 21.     On 3   March 2022 the police visited Dozhd TV’s premises and handed over two warnings from the Moscow City Prosecutor against disseminating extremist materials in the media. According to the text, the prosecutors identified materials on Dozhd TV’s YouTube channel that contained “public calls for extremist and terrorist activities, violence against citizens, and incitement to hatred and enmity, including on the basis of ethnic origin”. 22.     On 3   March 2022 the RKN began sending letters to satellite and cable communication operators, indicating that the Dozhd TV channel should be removed from their packages pursuant to the PGO’s demand. In its letters to operators, the RKN demanded that “measures be taken to stop the dissemination of unreliable information through the broadcasting of the Dozhd TV channel on their networks”. As a result, network operators ceased retransmitting the Dozhd TV channel. 23.     On the same day the TV channel’s editorial office stopped producing and releasing media products. This decision was due to two main reasons: the inability to continue network broadcasting, and the fears of the management that the journalists and staff could be prosecuted for the organisation of, and participation in, extremist activities. 24.     By a judgment of 23   May 2022, as upheld on appeal on 9   February 2023, the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the decision of 1 March about the blocking of access to the website. III.     PROSECUTION OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS A.    Criminal proceedings 1.      Vladimir Kara-Murza (no.   43083/22) 25.     On 11   April 2022 the police detained Mr   Kara-Murza, an opposition politician and journalist, in front of his apartment block in Moscow. He was charged with disobedience on the grounds that he had “changed his trajectory of movement and hastened his step upon seeing police officers” and refused to produce identity documents upon their request. The following morning he was taken to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court, which found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to fifteen days of detention, enforceable immediately. On 25   April 2022 the Moscow City Court rejected his appeal. 26.     In the meantime, on 12   April 2022, investigators instituted criminal proceedings against Mr   Kara-Murza for disseminating “fake news” about the Russian Army, committed for pecuniary gain and for motives of “political hate”, an offence under Article   207.3 §   2   (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code. The charges related to his speech before members of the Arizona State House of Representatives on 15   March 2022, made available online on the Arizona House GOP’s YouTube channel. In his speech, he was alleged to have imparted “knowingly false information” about the Russian troops bombing residential areas and critical infrastructure, including maternity wards, hospitals and schools, using cluster munitions, and unleashing a war of aggression against Ukraine. He had also “negatively referred” to the Russian authorities, including the President of Russia. For that speech, he had received a speaking fee from the Free Russia Foundation (FRF), an organisation designated as “undesirable” in Russia (see Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v.   Russia , nos.   37949/18 and 84 others, §§   6-12, 18   June 2024). 27.     On 22   April 2022 Mr   Kara-Murza was designated as a “foreign agent”. On the same day the Basmannyy District Court authorised his detention on remand which was subsequently extended on 9 August, 10   October and 8   December 2022. The Moscow City Court dismissed all appeals against the detention and extension orders. 28.     On 13   July 2022 Mr   Kara-Murza was additionally charged with involvement in the activities of an “undesirable organisation”, a criminal offence under Article   284.1 of the Criminal Code (ibid., §   61). The charge referred to the fact that, despite having incurred administrative liability for his involvement with Open Russia, another “undesirable organisation”, in 2021 (ibid., §§   46-50 and a summary of application no.   59894/21 in the appendix to that judgment), he had organised a round-table on prisoners of conscience in Russia in cooperation with the FRF. 29.     On 29   August 2022 a third and most serious charge was added: high treason under Article   275 of the Criminal Code, described as “providing consulting or other assistance to a foreign organisation in activities undermining the security of the Russian Federation”. This charge referred to his membership of the FRF board of directors and his three speaking engagements before the Parliamentary Assembly of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the US Helsinki Commission, for which he had received speaking fees from the FRF. His speeches criticised the legitimacy of the 2024 presidential election, exposed State terror and political killings in Russia, and referred to an “information iron curtain” preventing the people of Russia from knowing the truth about the war in Ukraine. Such statements were alleged to have harmed the constitutional foundations and sovereignty of Russia, undermined the people’s trust in its authorities, escalated protest sentiment, and damaged the international standing of Russia by portraying it as a persistent violator of human rights and an “aggressor State”, which may have given cause to increase external political and economic pressure. 30.     On 17   April 2023 the Moscow City Court, following a closed trial, found Mr   Kara-Murza guilty of all three charges and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment in a strict-security facility. The court relied on video footage of his speeches, which the prosecution sourced online, and on invoices for speaking engagements issued to the FRF, which the prosecution acquired from his mobile phone. To establish the falsity of Mr   Kara-Murza’s statements, the court referred to a document obtained by the prosecution from the General Staff of the Armed Forces. According to it, “Russia was not at war with Ukraine” and “during the special military operation, the Russian troops did not use any prohibited means or methods of warfare” such as cluster munitions against civilians. On 31   July 2023 the First Appellate Court upheld the conviction. 2.      Dmytro Gordon (no.   45470/22) 31.     On 16   March 2022 Mr   Gordon, a well-known Ukrainian journalist and political commentator, made the following remarks during an interview with a Ukrainian news channel: “With Russia, you’ve got to speak the language of force. That’s the only language they understand well ... If [Putin] threatens the US with nukes, [the US] will drop them on him and bury him along with his fascist country ... Russians need to be beaten – not the ordinary people, but Putin’s State and those bastards who invaded our land. Take them down hard, spare no one. They bomb our theatres where women and children are sheltering. They bomb our houses and kill civilians. No pity – kill them all without mercy, get to Putin and kill him. That’s the most important job for the whole civilised world”. 32 .     On the following day Russia’s Investigations Committee (“the ICRF”) announced that its chairman had personally ordered a review of Mr   Gordon’s interview on the grounds that Mr   Gordon had called for “violence against the Russian authorities and military personnel” and “the use of nuclear weapons against the Russian Federation”. On 21   March 2022 the ICRF announced in a press release and video that it had opened a criminal investigation into Mr   Gordon on three charges. The ICRF stated that Mr   Gordon had appealed “for an armed attack on the Russian Federation using nuclear weapons”, an offence under Article   354 §   2 of the Criminal Code (Public calls to unleashing a war of aggression), that he had called “for the destruction of Russian citizens on the basis of nationality, language and origin”, a hate ‑ speech offence under Article   282 §   2   (a) of the Criminal Code, and also had disseminated “deliberately false information about the bombing by the Russian Armed Forces of civilian infrastructure and civilians on the territory of Ukraine” for reasons of “political hate”, an offence under Article   207.3 §   2   (e) of the Criminal Code. 33.     On 6   April 2022 the Russian financial monitor added Mr   Gordon’s name to the List of Terrorists and Extremists on the grounds that he was charged with “extremist” offences (see, on the legal and financial consequences of the inclusion, Yefimov and Youth Human Rights Group v.   Russia , nos.   12385/15 and 51619/15, §§   26 and 37, 7   December 2021). 34.     By decision of 22   July 2022, as upheld on appeal on 10   August 2022, the Basmannyy District Court granted the investigators’ application for an arrest warrant against Mr   Gordon. 35.     No documents have been served on Mr   Gordon by any Russian authority, as part of the criminal proceedings or otherwise. On 29   August and 2   September 2022 he asked the ICRF, the courts and the lawyer who had been appointed to represent him in the detention proceedings for copies of all documentation generated by the proceedings. No responses were received. 36.     On 2   September 2022 Mr   Gordon was designated as a “foreign agent”. 37.     On 1   July 2024 the Second Western Circuit Military Court in Moscow sentenced Mr   Gordon in absentia to fourteen years’ imprisonment in connection with the charges listed in paragraph 32 above. 3.      Aleksandra Skochilenko (no.   45953/22) 38.     On 30   March 2022 Ms   Skochilenko, an artist and musician, replaced five price tags in a supermarket in St Petersburg with look-alike tags of her making that carried the following messages: “The Russian army bombed an art school in Mariupol with four hundred people sheltering there”; “Russian conscripts are sent to Ukraine. This war will cost us the lives of our children”; “Stop the war! 4,300 Russian soldiers died in the first three days. Why do they say nothing about it on television?”; “For twenty years, Putin has been lying to us on TV. These lies have prepared us to justify the war and the senseless deaths”; “My great-grandfather did not spend four years fighting in the Great Patriotic War for Russia to become a fascist state attacking Ukraine”. 39.     On 11   April 2022 she was arrested and charged under Article   207.3 §   2 (e) of the Criminal Code with the aggravating circumstance of acting out of “political hate”. On 13   April 2022 the Vasileostrovskiy District Court in St Petersburg remanded her in custody, citing the gravity of the charges, a lack of permanent employment, the existence of friends in Ukraine, and her sister living in France. On 17   May 2022 the St Petersburg City Court rejected an appeal against the detention order. 40.     The District Court further extended Ms   Skochilenko’s detention on 30   May, 30 June, 29 July, 30 August, 28 September and 25   October 2022 and 22   March, 6 July and 2   October 2023. These extensions were upheld by the appeal court on 22 July, 11 August, 29 August, 26 September, 27 October and 12   December 2022 and 21 April, 11 August and 10   November 2023. At each detention hearing, she was placed in a metal cage in the courtroom. 41.     On 16   November 2023 Ms   Skochilenko was found guilty as charged and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. 4.      Mikhail Afanasyev (no.   48520/22) 42.     On 4   April 2022 Mr   Afanasyev, the editor of the online media outlet Novyy Fokus , reported that eleven National Guard officers had refused to take part in the “special military operation” in Ukraine. 43.     On 13   April 2022 he was charged under Article   207.3 §   2 (a) of the Criminal Code for that publication, with the aggravating element of committing the offence through the use of his office. His three residences were searched on the same and following days and he was remanded in custody. The court warrants authorising the searches contained no specific indication of items to be found or their relevance to the investigation. The investigators seized his electronic devices, documents, money and materials containing information about his private life and confidential journalistic sources. Mr   Afanasyev’s appeals against the search warrants highlighted their vague formulation and lack of safeguards for journalistic materials, noting that despite the court being aware of his role as a journalist and editor-in-chief of an online publication, no special protection was provided for confidential source materials. The appeals were dismissed in a summary fashion. 44.     On 7   September 2023 the Abakan City Court of the Republic of Khakassia found Mr   Afanasyev guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment, with an additional prohibition on holding journalistic, editorial or publishing jobs for two and a half years after release. 5.      Olga Smirnova (no.   50247/22) 45.     Between 4 and 9   March 2022 Ms   Smirnova, a civil society activist, shared posts against the war in Ukraine in the social media group War Chronicles. One of these posts, promoting an anti-war rally on 6 March, read: “The gravity of war crimes committed by Russian aggressors within just a few days of this year is comparable only to the atrocities of the German Nazis during World War   II. This war is a crime against all mankind! Our views are on our banners”. 46.     On 5   May 2022 she was charged under Article   207.3 §   2 (e) of the Criminal Code for dissemination of false information for reasons of “political hate” and remanded in pre-trial detention. 47.     On 30   August 2023 the Kirovskiy District Court of St Petersburg found her guilty as charged and sentenced her to six years’ imprisonment, with an additional four-year prohibition on administering web pages. On 20   March 2024 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 6.      Maikl Sidney Naki (no.   57229/22) 48.     Mr   Naki is a Russian videoblogger with over a million followers on his YouTube channel. In March 2022 he settled in Lithuania. 49.     On 16   March 2022 Mr   Naki and his co-host, Mr   Karpuk (Leviyev), were charged under Article   207.3 §   2   (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code, with the aggravating elements of acting in a co-ordinated group and “fabricating evidence to support accusations”. The charges were related to their YouTube video uploaded on 5   March 2022, titled “WAR. SUMMARY OF DAY NINE. Strikes on a nuclear power plant, Syria-style clean-up tactics, three Russian war planes downed”. The investigators stated that they had knowingly disseminated false claims that the Russian Army was destroying cities, killing civilians and shelling a nuclear power plant, using video footage to support their allegations. On 12   May 2022 Mr   Naki was declared a fugitive from justice with an international warrant for his arrest. 50.     On 26   May 2022 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow granted a prosecutor’s application to attach Mr   Naki’s bank accounts for up to RUB   5,000,000, described as an amount “commensurate to the damage caused by the offence”. On 3   August 2022 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal against the attachment order. 51.     On 9   September 2022 Mr   Naki and Mr   Karpuk were designated as “foreign agents”. 52.     On 29   August 2023 the Basmannyy District Court found Mr   Naki and Mr   Karpuk guilty as charged in absentia and sentenced each of them to eleven years’ imprisonment. On 13   December 2023 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal against the conviction. 7.      Vsevolod Korolev (no.   2156/23) 53.     In March and April 2022 Mr   Korolev, a documentary filmmaker, posted on social media that ten thousand people had died in Mariupol, that Donetsk had been shelled with cluster munitions from Russian-controlled territory, and that “people who refused to believe that the massacres in Bucha and Borodyanka had been perpetrated by Russian troops displayed a remarkable degree of naiveté”. 54.     On 11   July 2022 he was charged under Article   207.3 of the Criminal Code in connection with his social media posts and remanded in custody. On 8 September and 10   October 2022 the Vyborgskiy District Court in St   Petersburg extended his detention. At every detention hearing, Mr   Korolev was held in a fully enclosed glass booth which was narrow and stifling. 55.     On 20   March 2024 the Vyborgskiy District Court found Mr   Korolev guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. On 2   July 2024 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed his appeal and increased the sentence to seven years’ imprisonment. B.    Administrative proceedings 56.     Except where otherwise specified, all the other individual applicants were prosecuted and convicted under Article   20.3.3 of the CAO for the offence of “discrediting” the Russian military. The facts giving rise to their convictions and the penalties imposed are summarised below and set out in detail in the appendix. 57.     The most common form of the applicants’ anti-war expression, in approximately one third of individual cases, was a direct and straightforward message “NO TO WAR” («НЕТ ВОЙНЕ») or its close variations. The applicants used that phrase on their signs, placards, clothing, stickers, social media posts, hashtags and drawings. For instance, Mr   Kurkov held a sign stating “NO TO WAR” in central St Petersburg (no.   46061/22). Ms   Chubinidze was arrested at an airport for wearing a backpack with a sign “No to War” (no.   1699/23). Mr   Berdnikov used the hashtags #NoToWar, #IAmAgainstWar, and #NoWar on his social media account (no.   55820/22), and Ms   Bashmakova placed a “NO TO WAR” sign on her car (no.   55543/22). 58.     The phrase became so recognisable that domestic courts penalised its reproduction even in masked but easily identifiable forms. Mr   Kallas was fined for attaching a series of asterisks to his car’s rear window, their layout matching the number of letters in the Russian phrase “No to war” (no.   2867/23). The domestic courts reasoned that the mere use of the word “war” was damaging to the reputation of the Russian Army, as the official narrative characterised the situation as a “special military operation” rather than a “war”. 59.     Applicants who did not use the word “war” and whose message was essentially pro-peace were also convicted. Ms   Svalova was fined for holding a sign featuring a white dove alongside the words “I stand for peace” (no.   4828/23) and Ms   Feygina for stencilling a peace dove image onto a public thoroughfare (no.   2867/23). 60.     Expressions of support or solidarity with Ukraine, including references to the distinctive blue and yellow colours of the Ukrainian national flag, were sanctioned. Ms   Shlosberg and Mr   Olkhovik were prosecuted for posting online, even before the start of the invasion, respectively, selfies in Ukrainian-themed clothing (no.   48958/22) and a picture of the Ukrainian national flag with an anti-war comment (no.   1200/23). Mr   Nadein was arrested twice for jogging outdoors in a hoodie with the Ukrainian flag (no.   45083/22), while Ms   Sokolova was detained for wearing a blue ‑ and ‑ yellow hat with a peace sign and a heart-shaped badge (no.   44505/22). 61.     Several applicants were punished for defacing the “Z” symbol, an emblem of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or for juxtaposing it with Nazi symbols to highlight their apparent similarity. Ms   Kislyakova tore down a “Z” sign from a university wall (no.   121/23). Mr   Balyasin defaced a “Z” in a city road sign that the authorities had modified to include the invasion symbol (no.   7824/23). Ms   Sveshnikova transformed the “Z” into a warning traffic signal (no.   39003/22). Ms   Stativka and Ms   Olkhova either combined the “Z” with a derogatory term in graffiti (no.   925/23) or posted a picture of a dog defecating on it (no.   464/23). Mr   Otradnov compared the “Z” with the Wolfsangel, a Nazi symbol (no.   51325/22), and Mr   Broy compared it with the swastika (no.   45045/22). 62.     Drawing historic parallels between the Nazi invasion of the USSR during World War II and the Russian invasion of Ukraine also constituted forms of expression liable to be suppressed. Mr   Sukhorukov and Mr   Samusev referred in different ways to the tragic fate of a survivor of Nazi concentration camps who had been killed by Russian shelling of Kharkiv (nos.   54147/22 and 1750/23). Mr   Moyseyenko, an 86-year-old survivor of the Nazi occupation himself, expressed support for anti-war protest (no.   860/23). Mr   Glushkov put side by side images of people sheltering in metro stations in 1941 Moscow and 2022 Kharkiv (no.   57672/22). Ms   Vedyagina shared a post comparing a protesting Russian journalist to a man who refused to give the Nazi salute in 1936 (no.   1572/23). Challenging the patriotic narrative of Russia’s Victory Day parade, Mr   Litvinenko and Mr   Saltevskiy raised signs claiming that Russia’s policies represented a new form of fascism that needed to be defeated, just as the old fascism was (nos.   3733/23 and 14801/23), and Mr   Akhunov held up a photograph of his great-grandfather with the text stating that he had given “his life so we could have peace” (no.   4920/23). 63.     Some applicants used their positions and access to audiences to convey anti-war messages. An Orthodox priest, Mr   Burdin, shared an anti ‑ war sermon on his parish website and read it to his parishioners before the lithurgy, reminding them of the Christian duty to oppose the killing of brethren (no.   43213/22). Ms   Yanovskaya, a newspaper editor, published an opinion piece expressing anti-war sentiments (no.   48104/22). Ms   Bezaziyeva, a Crimean Tatar teacher in Crimea, told her secondary ‑ school students about atrocities committed by Russian soldiers (no.   1385/23). Mr   Nefedov, the head of a Moscow municipal district, signed and published a statement calling for an end to war and for Putin’s resignation (no.   47616/22), and municipal councillors in St Petersburg voted for an appeal to Parliament to have Putin indicted for treason (nos.   16711/23, 16717/23 and 16721/23). 64.     While many applicants resorted to traditional forms of anti-war expression such as individual vigils with placards or social media posts, a few found creative ways of conveying their opposition to war. Ms   Derisheva replaced supermarket price tags with protest messages similar to those used by Ms   Skochilenko (no.   47115/22), while Ms   Kulikovskaya stamped anti ‑ war text on money, hoping to give wider circulation to her message (no.   280/23). Mr   Malinovskiy wore an anti-war sticker on his coat and projected the text “NO.WAR.RUSSIA” onto a building façade at night (no.   53823/22). Mr   Mitrofanov crafted a cardboard box shaped like a cigarette pack with the warning message “Common sense warning: special military operation kills” (no.   44304/22). Ms   Panina designed a sign made up of eight squares, each containing a different scenario of how the war affected various individuals (no.   50659/22), and Ms   Isayeva poured red paint over herself while shouting “My heart is bleeding” to create a visceral representation of the war’s impact (no.   39794/22). Mr   Krivtsov put up crosses in a public park in Moscow, displaying the question “How many died in Mariupol? And what for?” (no.   13844/23). 65.     Expressing anti-war views outside of public sphere, even in private or professional settings, also resulted in prosecutions and convictions. Mr   Pistsov faced legal consequences for stating his opposition to the “unjust war” during a military service medical examination (no.   37076/22). Ms   Chernyakevich was reported to the police by her own spouse for sharing anti-war content from Ukrainian sources in private family exchanges (no.   57642/22), while Mr   Shabanov was denounced by his work colleagues for sharing anti-war videos among them (no.   55460/22). 66.     On 5   March 2022 Mr   Arinichev posted a video to his YouTube channel (no.   8102/23). It was the only video on a channel with one follower. In the video, he spoke approvingly of the sanctions against Russian companies and politicians due to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Administrative proceedings were instituted against Mr   Arinichev under Article   20.3.4 of the CAO. By judgment of 8   March 2022, as upheld on appeal on 21   September 2022, the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow found him guilty as charged and imposed a fine of RUB   35,000. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND MATERIAL I.       &#xa0