CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDC0F5DF3 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEBD403DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s5E503E34 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s301E5582 { width:146.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; 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 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF GOOGLE LLC AND OTHERS v.   RUSSIA (Application no.   37027/22)   JUDGMENT Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Imposition of substantial fines on Google LLC for failure to comply with take-down requests concerning user-generated content hosted on YouTube • Severity of penalties, combined with threat of further sanctions, exerted considerable pressure to censor content • Impugned measures applied indiscriminately to a broad range of content, including political expression, criticism of the Government, reporting on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by independent news outlets and support for LGBTQ rights • Content concerned matter of significant public interest, particularly in the context of an armed conflict with profound implications for European and global security • Domestic courts’ failure to assess the content’s truthfulness, the risks it posed, its impact or reach and harm it had caused or was likely to cause • Impugned measure struck at the very heart of the Internet’s function as a means for the free exchange of ideas and information • Disproportionate nature and scale of fines liable to have “chilling effect” • Interference not “necessary in a democratic society” Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Imposition of penalties on Google LLC for failure to comply with domestic courts’ order to restore television channel’s YouTube account • Suspension made due to sanctions imposed on television channel’s owner for providing material and public support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea • Penalties imposed manifestly disproportionate and bore no relationship to any harm suffered • Domestic authorities’ determination to continue the recovery of funds even after compliance with the obligation to restore access • Expansion of the requirements of original court order, based on expert evidence commissioned without adversarial input, incompatible with legal certainty • Enforcement proceedings conducted in bad faith Art 6 § 1 (administrative, enforcement and civil) • Imposition of fines on applicant company for failure to remove content on YouTube based on revenue of multiple entities without providing adequate justification for the compatibility of that approach with domestic law • Failure to address applicant company’s objection to aggregation approach • Enforcement proceedings against different applicant company instituted without addressing argument that as a separate legal entity it could not be held liable • Failure to provide adequate reasoning for asserting jurisdiction over dispute concerning suspension of Russian television channel’s YouTube account • Very essence of applicant companies’ right to a reasoned judgment undermined   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 8 July 2025   FINAL   08/10/2025     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Google   LLC and Others v.   Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Darian Pavli , Acting President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the two applications 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 four Google companies (“the applicants” or “the applicant companies”) listed below on 20   July and 15   September 2022 and merged under application no.   37027/22; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles   6 and 10 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the administrative and civil proceedings, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision by the Government of Ireland not to exercise their right to intervene in the case, which was available to them in respect of the applicant company incorporated under Irish law (Article   36 §   1 of the Convention); the applicants’ observations; 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 17   June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant companies’ complaints that Russian authorities imposed excessive fines to enforce demands for the removal of political-opposition and war-reporting content from YouTube and for the hosting of content from a Russian television channel. THE FACTS THE APPLICANT COMPANIES 2 .     The applicant companies are: (i)     Google   LLC, incorporated in the State of Delaware, United States of America; (ii)     OOO Google, incorporated in Russia (“Google Russia”); (iii)     Google International LLC, incorporated in the State of Delaware, United States of America (“Google International”); (iv)     Google Ireland Limited, incorporated in Ireland (“Google Ireland”). 3.     According to the applicants, Google   LLC provides access to the YouTube video-sharing platform, Google Russia offers marketing and advertising services to customers in Russia, and Google Ireland provides access to the Gmail email platform and other Google services to users in the European Region. Google   LLC is a shareholder in Google International, which in turn is the sole shareholder of Google Russia and an indirect shareholder in Google Ireland. 4.     The applicants were represented by William Thomas KC and Timothy Otty KC, barristers in the United Kingdom. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS FOR FAILURE TO REMOVE YOUTUBE CONTENT 5.     In December 2020 the Russian authorities, confronted with the non-compliance of multinational content-sharing platforms, such as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Twitter and Google’s YouTube, with their requests to remove political speech and criticism from their platforms, enacted the new Article   13.41 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”, see paragraph 38 below). The new provision granted Russia’s telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor, “the RKN”) broad powers to seek large fines against platform owners who failed to comply with “notifications on restricting access to the information resource” (“take-down requests” or TDRs) concerning content considered unlawful under section   15.3 of the Information Act (see paragraph 43 below). On 10   January 2021 the new provision came into force. 6.     During the first six months of 2021, the RKN issued a series of TDRs, directing Google   LLC to block specific content and channels on YouTube. Google   LLC complied with the requests it determined to be legitimate but refused to execute those that related to political speech. For the non ‑ compliance, it was sanctioned with a series of lump-sum fines ranging from 3 to 8 million Russian roubles (RUB). 7 .     On 25   September 2021 the RKN issued a further eight TDRs to Google   LLC concerning content on YouTube, including a video that criticised the Russian authorities’ approach to the COVID-19 pandemic and the proposals for amending the Constitution of Russia. This video contained statements in support of the opposition to the Russian authorities, including opposition politician Mr   Navalnyy. Google   LLC implemented a “geo-block” on five of the eight videos or channels, making them inaccessible to users within Russia. Google   LLC declined to block two videos and one channel, including the video described above, determining that they constituted legitimate political expression. 8 .     On 24   December 2021 the Justice of the Peace for the Court Circuit no.   422 in Moscow found Google   LLC guilty of an administrative offence under Article   13.41 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB   7,221,916,235 (approximately 87 million euros, EUR). The judgment established the defendant’s non-compliance with the TDRs, without analysing the implication of the removal for the exercise of freedom of expression. The fine was calculated as five per cent of the “combined revenue of Google   LLC and its affiliates” in Russia for the year 2020. This total included the revenue of Google   LLC (RUB   40million), Google Commerce Limited (RUB   49   billion), Google Ireland (RUB   95 billion) and Google Voice Inc. (RUB   400,000). The judgment did not explain why the revenue of entities other than Google   LLC, which were not parties to the proceedings, was included in the calculation of the fine, nor did it clarify which entities were considered to be “affiliates”. 9 .     Google   LLC lodged an appeal on several grounds, including that the Justice of the Peace lacked jurisdiction; that the fine had been imposed without affording Google   LLC an opportunity to oppose the TDRs; and that the fine had not been properly calculated as there was no basis in law for taking into account the turnover of alleged “affiliates” when calculating the fine and that it was also disproportionate, since its amount was more than one hundred times greater than Google   LLC’s revenue in Russia. On 28   February 2022 the Taganskiy District Court dismissed the appeal in a summary fashion. 10 .     In March and May 2022 the RKN issued further TDRs to Google   LLC, directing the blocking of certain videos and channels on YouTube on the grounds that they contained “socially significant disinformation” or “calls for extremist activities” within the meaning of section   15.3 of the Information Act. The videos and channels included Mr   Navalnyy’s YouTube channel and reporting on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from independent news outlets. Google   LLC declined to block that content. 11 .     On 21   April 2022 the same Justice of the Peace imposed lump-sum fines on Google   LLC amounting to a total of RUB   11,000,000 (approximately EUR   125,000) for failing to block access to Mr   Navalnyy’s channel and the videos identified in the March 2022 TDRs. 12.     On 18   July 2022 the same Justice of the Peace imposed a second turnover fine in the amount of RUB   21,077,392,312 (approximately EUR   360 million) for the failure to block war reporting videos identified in the May 2022 TDRs. The court based the calculation of the fine on the aggregate revenue for the year 2021 of Google   LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Voice Inc. and Google Cloud EMEA Limited. In aggregating the revenue of these entities, the court referred to the introductory provisions of YouTube’s Terms of Service, which identified Google   LLC as the “provider of the Service” and defined the term “Affiliated Entities” to include companies within the Alphabet Inc. group. The court further relied on the wording of YouTube’s Privacy Policy and Google’s Terms of Service, which stipulated that the terms “we” or “Google” referred collectively to “Google   LLC and its affiliated entities”. The court also determined that paragraph   5 of Article   13.41 of the COA, which provides for higher penalties in the case of repeated violations, was applicable due to the existence of previous similar infringements by Google   LLC. It held that Google   LLC had “continued its unlawful conduct” despite having received multiple notifications from the RKN, and concluded that the prior fine, calculated at one-twentieth of revenue, “did not have the desired effect”. The court therefore applied the enhanced sanction of one tenth of the aggregate revenue. 13 .     In its grounds of appeal, Google   LLC reiterated the arguments it had previously submitted (see paragraph 9 above). In particular, it emphasised that the inclusion of revenue from entities that were neither parties to the proceedings nor charged with any offence lacked any basis in domestic law. It further submitted that the court’s reliance on YouTube’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to support the aggregated approach to the calculation of the fine disregarded relevant provisions of domestic civil law and the principle of separate legal personality. The court failed to explain how definitions set out in user agreements could prevail over the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Nor did it identify any provision in domestic legislation that would permit the attribution of liability from one legal entity to other entities within the same corporate group. 14.     On 9   September 2022 and 2   October 2023 the Taganskiy District Court dismissed Google   LLC’s appeals against the above decisions, holding, among other matters, that Russian courts had jurisdiction because Google   LLC did not have a representative office in Russia. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE PROVISION OF YOUTUBE HOSTING 15 .     Tsargrad is a Russian media group owned by K.M., a Russian businessman sanctioned by the European Union, the United States and Canada for providing material support to Russian-backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine and publicly supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea. 16.     Tsargrad TV, a television channel, had held YouTube and Gmail accounts, operated under contracts with Google   LLC and Google Ireland. The contract with Google   LLC was governed by California law and conferred exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes to the courts in California. The contract with Google Ireland was governed by English law and conferred exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes to the English courts. Both contracts stipulated that the relevant Google entity could suspend or terminate access to an account where necessary to comply with legal requirements. 17.     On 28   July 2020, reacting to US sanctions, Google   LLC suspended Tsargrad’s YouTube and Gmail accounts. In response, Tsargrad filed a claim against Google   LLC, Google Ireland and Google Russia, alleging that the suspension of its YouTube and Gmail accounts had been in breach of the Russian Civil Code. 18 .     In a judgment dated 20   April 2021, the Moscow City Commercial Court assumed jurisdiction over the claim on the basis of a new provision in Russian law that stipulated the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts over disputes involving sanctioned Russian entities (Article   248.1 of the Code of Commercial Procedure, see paragraph 47 below). The court held that the suspension of Tsargrad’s accounts was unlawful for several reasons. Firstly, the US and EU sanctions targeting K.M. and his media companies contradicted Russian public order as they interfered with Russian State sovereignty and could not apply on Russian territory. Secondly, the defendant companies did not explain why the account was only blocked six years after K.M. had first been sanctioned, nor did they clarify which sanctions prohibited the provision of free services to Russian users in regions other than the (annexed) Crimea. Thirdly, the defendant companies did not comply with their own contractual terms, which required a sixty-day notice period before unilaterally terminating service. The Commercial Court concluded that, in the absence of grounds for unilateral termination, the termination was null and void. As a result, Google   LLC, Google Ireland and Google Russia were jointly and severally liable to restore access to Tsargrad’s accounts. Compliance with this obligation was to be enforced by an astreinte penalty of RUB   100,000 (approximately EUR   1,000) per day thereafter, to double every week until the order was complied with, with no upper limit. 19 .     The defendant companies appealed against the decision of the Moscow City Commercial Court. In a judgment dated 20   December 2021, the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeals capped the astreinte penalty at RUB   1   billion (approximately EUR   11   million) for a nine-month period ending on 20   September 2022, after which the penalty was to be uncapped. Regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of Russian courts, the court observed that since Tsargrad sought relief which contradicted the objectives of the US and EU sanctions – specifically to continue receiving revenue via a US ‑ controlled company (Google   LLC) and its EU subsidiary (Google Ireland) – the dispute was “unlikely to be examined fairly and objectively in American or British courts”. The court reached this conclusion despite evidence adduced by the defendant companies that K.M. had previously been able to litigate in the United States without his sanctioned status presenting any obstacle to accessing justice. The court further held that, in any event, the dispute did not involve the application or interpretation of American or English contract law. The sole issue of contention was whether the invoked grounds for terminating the contract, notably foreign sanctions, complied with the public order of the Russian Federation. 20 .     The day after the Google companies were made aware of the decision of the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeals, access to Tsargrad’s accounts was restored, although features that would enable Tsargrad to generate revenue (“monetisation”) from the accounts were not. The Google companies also appealed further to the Federal Commercial Court for the Moscow District. 21.     The appeal to the Federal Commercial Court for the Moscow District was dismissed on 24   March 2022. Leave to file a further cassation appeal before the Supreme Court was rejected in a summary fashion on 17   June 2022. ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS Seizure of Google Russia’s assets 22 .     On 22   March 2022 a court bailiff seized Google Russia’s corporate bank account by directing the bank to transfer all available funds, amounting to approximately RUB   4.6 billion, to the bailiff in order to secure enforcement of Tsargrad’s claims. The bailiff further ordered that any new funds or accounts receivable deposited into Google Russia’s bank accounts be immediately transferred to the bailiff’s account. Appointment of an expert to determine compliance 23 .     On 23   March 2022 the bailiff appointed an expert to compare “the functionalities available to the user of the Google account [email protected] with those available to the average Google account user”. 24 .     One day later the expert returned the findings, which repeated Tsargrad’s submissions and concluded as follows: “From a technical point of view, restoring access to the Google Account means reinstating all services that were available before the blockage ... We note that the inaccessibility of managing the AdSense [advertising] service ... makes the service unusable and simultaneously prevents monetisation (revenue generation) from advertising on the YouTube channel ...” On that basis, the expert determined that “substantial parts of the Tsargrad account’s functionality had not been restored”. The bailiff had given no notice to the Google companies of intention to appoint the expert. The expert’s report was not communicated to the Google companies, nor were they given an opportunity to submit comments. 25 .     On the following day, relying on the expert’s report, the bailiff transferred RUB   1 billion seized from Google Russia’s account to Tsargrad. On 1   April 2022 Tsargrad publicly announced that it would use the funds it received to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 26.     On 5   April 2022 the bailiff charged Google Russia with an administrative offence for failure to comply with the court order. Google Russia submitted objections to the charge that same day on the ground that the order had been complied with. On 22   April 2022 the bailiff found Google Russia liable as charged and imposed a RUB   30,000 administrative fine. 27.     On 29   April 2022 the Moscow City Commercial Court dismissed Google Russia’s complaint in respect of the seizure of its funds, without addressing the submission that the judgment had in fact been complied with. In respect of quantum, it held that it was for the bailiff to decide what should be taken, stating that “the amount to be arrested and recovered is not determined by the court”. On 12   May 2022 the same court refused Google Russia’s complaint in respect of the appointment of the expert, and, on 10   June 2022, a further complaint challenging the institution of administrative offence proceedings by the bailiff. Google Russia’s submission that the order had in fact been complied with was not addressed in either judgment. Challenge to the enforcement of Google   LLC’s fine from Google Russia’s seized funds 28.     On 23   May 2022 the bailiff issued a decision stating that the fine of RUB   7,221,916,235 imposed on Google   LLC (see paragraph 8 above) had been paid in full. 29.     On 27   June 2022 Google Russia challenged the bailiff’s decision before the Moscow City Commercial Court, submitting that its assets, which had been seized in connection with a civil claim (see paragraph 22 above), had been unlawfully used to pay a fine imposed on a different company in separate administrative proceedings. The Commercial Court declined to consider the challenge on the grounds that the original writ of enforcement had been issued by a court of general jurisdiction. 30.     On 15   July 2022 Google Russia resubmitted the challenge to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court in Moscow. It also supplemented the claim with a complaint concerning the recovery of enforcement penalties and unidentified fines from the seized funds. On 25   July 2022 the District Court dismissed the challenge, upholding the enforcement against Google Russia of the fines and penalties imposed on Google   LLC. The court held that recovery could be effected against the seized funds of Google Russia because Google Russia constituted a “ de facto representative office” ( «фактическое представительство» ) of Google   LLC. In reaching this conclusion, the court pointed out that Google Russia had “presented itself as, and had in fact acted as, a representative of Google   LLC in its interactions with Russian users and regulators, including the RKN”. 31 .     Google Russia filed an appeal, submitting that the legal characterisation of a “ de facto representative office” was fundamentally inconsistent with the principle of Russian civil law that each legal entity possesses a separate corporate identity and maintains distinct assets which cannot be used to satisfy claims against other entities. It argued, firstly, that Google   LLC did not have any representative offices or branches within the territory of Russia and, secondly, that under Russian law, a representative office lacked legal personality, whereas Google Russia was incorporated as a limited liability company. 32.     On 11   October 2022 the Administrative Chamber of the Moscow City Court summarily dismissed the appeal, endorsing the findings of the District Court. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS “Copycat” claims 33 .     The award in favour of Tsargrad paved the way for other plaintiffs, predominantly Russian State-owned and affiliated television channels, to file more than twenty repeat or “copycat” claims, alleging the unlawful termination of their Google accounts or blocking of YouTube channels. Apart from two claims which were dismissed for procedural technicalities, the Moscow City Commercial Court granted all the claims, and the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeals and higher courts upheld the judgments on appeal. 34 .     In each case, the courts issued an order to restore access to the Google accounts and YouTube channels, accompanied by an astreinte penalty of RUB   100,000 per day thereafter, to double every week, capped at RUB   1   billion for an initial nine-month period and uncapped thereafter. 35.     According to the applicants’ calculations, as of September 2022 the accrued amount of the penalties exceeded 16 trillion US dollars. Bankruptcy of Google Russia 36.     On 16   June 2022 Google Russia filed for bankruptcy. 37.       Between 24 and 26   October 2022 the tangible property owned by Google Russia was seized to satisfy one of the “copycat” astreinte penalties. 38 .       On 18   April 2023 the bailiff ordered the withdrawal and transfer of all funds from Google Russia’s accounts to the bailiff’s deposit account, allegedly to secure the preservation of Google Russia’s funds in relation to the “copycat” penalty claims. 39.       On 28   August 2023 the Moscow City Commercial Court granted the Tsargrad creditor application in the amount of RUB   32 billion (approximately EUR   310 million). 40.       On 18   October 2023 the Moscow City Commercial Court resolved to recognise Google Russia as bankrupt and to start liquidation proceedings. 41 .     As of the date of submission of the applicants’ observations in November 2023, Google Russia’s bankruptcy proceedings continued to progress. The bankruptcy court had granted approximately 830 creditor applications, with a further 160 applications remaining pending. Tsargrad and the Tax Authority were the two largest registered creditors of Google Russia, with claims of RUB   32.7 billion and RUB   19.5 billion, respectively. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK Information Act (Federal Law No. 149-FZ of 27   July 2006) 42.     Section 15.3 governs the procedure for restricting access to information disseminated in violation of the law. 43 .     Subsection   1 enumerates categories of unlawful content: “(a)     information containing calls for mass disorder, extremist activities, and taking part in mass (public) gatherings held in violation of the established order; (b)     false alerts about terrorist acts and other knowingly untrue socially important information disseminated under the guise of reliable reports ( недостоверная общественно значимая информация, распространяемая под видом достоверных сообщений ), which create a risk of harm to citizens’ life and health or property, a risk of mass disorders, a risk of undermining public security or a risk of disruptions or halting of operations of critical infrastructure, transport, social infrastructure, financial institutions, energy plants, industry, or communication systems, or could entail other serious consequences; (c)     disinformation presented as trustworthy messages concerning the deployment of the Russian Armed Forces for the protection of the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintaining international peace and security ... or aimed at discrediting the deployment of the Russian Armed Forces for the protection of the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens, maintaining international peace and security ... [Added by Law no.   277-FZ of 14   July 2022]” 44.     Upon detecting unlawful content, the General Prosecutor’s Office mandates the telecommunications regulator, the RKN, to restrict access to web pages displaying unlawful content. The RKN determines the hosting provider responsible for the web page displaying unlawful content and sends a take-down request (TDR) to the provider (subsections   2(2) and   (3)). 45.     New subsection   4.1, added on 8   June 2020, requires owners of information resources to remove unlawful content within twenty-four hours of receiving the TDR. Code of Administrative Offences 46.     Article   13.41 of the CAO, introduced on 10   January 2021, establishes fines for owners of websites for failing to take down the unlawful content. An initial failure to take down content or web page when required to do so incurs a fine ranging from RUB   800,000 to 4,000,000 (paragraph   2), while failing to remove content containing calls for extremist activities, pornographic images of minors, or drug-related information attracts a fine of between RUB   3,000,000 and 8,000,000 (paragraph   4). Repeat offences incur increased fines in the amounts calculated as a percentage – up to one fifth – of the legal entity’s total annual revenue, subject to a minimum of RUB   4,000,000 (paragraphs   5 and 6). Code of Commercial Procedure 47 .     On 8   June 2020 the Code of Commercial Procedure was supplemented by Articles   248.1 and 248.2, which established that Russian courts should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes involving Russian entities that have been sanctioned by foreign States if a contractually defined choice of venue cannot be enforced because the sanctioned entity cannot access that venue. In that case, sanctioned entities may bring a dispute before a Russian court at their location and also obtain an anti-suit injunction barring the claim from being heard in any tribunal outside Russia. Civil Code 48 .     Article   308.3 of the Civil Code provides a mechanism for judicial enforcement of contractual obligations through the imposition of monetary penalties. The provision operates on two levels: first, it empowers creditors to seek specific performance of obligations through the courts; second, it authorises courts to impose monetary penalties in the event of non ‑ compliance with judicial orders requiring such performance. The quantum of any penalty is to be determined by reference to three principles: first, the principle of justice ( справедливость ); second, the principle of proportionality ( соразмерность ); and third, the principle that profit must not be derived from unlawful or unfair conduct. INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member States on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries, adopted on 7   March 2018 49 .     The Recommendation reads in the relevant parts as follows: “4.     A wide, diverse and rapidly evolving range of players, commonly referred to as ‘internet intermediaries’, facilitate interactions on the internet between natural and legal persons by offering and performing a variety of functions and services. Some connect users to the internet, enable the processing of information and data, or host web-based services, including for user-generated content. Others aggregate information and enable searches; they give access to, host and index content and services designed and/or operated by third parties ... 1.3.     Safeguards for freedom of expression “1.3.1.     Any request, demand or other action by public authorities addressed to internet intermediaries to restrict access (including blocking or removal of content), or any other measure that could lead to a restriction of the right to freedom of expression, shall be prescribed by law, pursue one of the legitimate aims foreseen in Article   10 of the Convention, be necessary in a democratic society and be proportionate to the aim pursued. State authorities should carefully evaluate the possible impact, including unintended, of any restrictions before and after applying them, while seeking to apply the least intrusive measure necessary to meet the policy objective. ... 1.3.5.     State authorities should not directly or indirectly impose a general obligation on intermediaries to monitor content which they merely give access to, or which they transmit or store, be it by automated means or not. When addressing any request to internet intermediaries or promoting, alone or with other States or international organisations, co-regulatory approaches by internet intermediaries, State authorities should avoid any action that may lead to general content monitoring ... 1.3.6. State authorities should ensure that the sanctions they impose on intermediaries for non ‑ compliance with regulatory frameworks are proportionate because disproportionate sanctions are likely to lead to the restriction of lawful content and to have a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression. 1.3.7.     States should ensure, in law and in practice, that intermediaries are not held liable for third-party content which they merely give access to or which they transmit or store. State authorities may hold intermediaries co-responsible with respect to content that they store if they do not act expeditiously to restrict access to content or services as soon as they become aware of their illegal nature, including through notice ‑ based procedures. State authorities should ensure that notice-based procedures are not designed in a manner that incentivises the take-down of legal content, for example due to inappropriately short timeframes ... 1.3.9.     Where intermediaries produce or manage content available on their platforms or where intermediaries play a curatorial or editorial role, including through the use of algorithms, State authorities should apply an approach that is graduated and differentiated, in line with Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on a new notion of media. States should determine appropriate levels of protection, as well as duties and responsibilities according to the role that intermediaries play in content production and dissemination processes, while paying due attention to their obligation to protect and promote pluralism and diversity in the online distribution of content.” EU Digital Services Act 50 .     Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19   October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) lays down harmonised rules on the responsibilities of providers of intermediary services, including hosting services, in respect of illegal content disseminated through their services. In accordance with Article   6 of that Regulation, providers of hosting services shall not be held liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service, on condition that the provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal content and, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content. The Regulation does not provide the legal basis for the issuing of orders to act against specific items of illegal content. However, in order to ensure that such orders can be complied with in an effective and efficient manner, so that the public authorities concerned can carry out their tasks and the providers are not subject to any disproportionate burdens, without unduly affecting the rights and legitimate interests of any third parties, Article   9 of the Regulation harmonises certain minimum conditions that such orders should fulfil. Section 5 of Chapter III of the Regulation places additional obligations on providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines to manage systemic risks, including the dissemination of illegal content and negative effects for the exercise of fundamental rights, civic discourse, electoral processes and public security. THE LAW PRELIMINARY ISSUES Consequences of the Government’s failure to participate in the proceedings 51.     The Court notes that the respondent Government, by failing to submit written observations when invited to do so, 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). Examination of complaints by Google Russia 52.     The applicant companies informed the Court that their observations had been submitted on behalf of all Google entities except OOO Google (“Google Russia”). They submitted that the liquidator appointed on 18   October 2023 was hostile to the company’s interests, and that, as a matter of Russian law, his appointment effectively extinguished their representatives’ authority to act on behalf of Google Russia. 53.     The Court takes note of the applicants’ submission but finds no grounds for attributing legal consequences to it. First, the Court cannot discontinue proceedings in respect of OOO Google, as the representatives have not submitted a formal request to withdraw the complaint; such a request, in order to be valid, must be unequivocal (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v.   France (dec.) [GC], no.   76642/01, §   30, ECHR   2006‑XIV). Secondly, the liquidation of an applicant company and the expiry of its powers of attorney under domestic law do not impede its representatives from continuing to act before the Court. The Court emphasises in this respect that the alleged violations of Article   6 of the Convention brought about Google Russia’s bankruptcy and its ceasing to exist as a legal person. Striking the application out of the list under such circumstances would undermine the very essence of the right of individual applications by legal persons, as it would encourage governments to deprive such entities of the possibility to pursue an application lodged at a time when they enjoyed legal personality (see Capital Bank AD v.   Bulgaria , no.   49429/99, §§   76-80, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts), and OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS v.   Russia (dec.), no.   14902/04, §§   439-44, 29   January 2009). Thirdly, the Court’s commitment to upholding human rights requires it to continue examining cases that raise issues of general interest beyond their specific circumstances. It has a particular responsibility to determine issues on public-policy grounds in the common interest, thereby raising the general standard of human rights protection. Jurisdiction 54 .     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged interference with the Convention rights 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 this application (see Fedotova and Others v.   Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68-73, 17   January 2023, and Pivkina and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos.   2134/23 and   6   others, §   46, 6   June 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONNECTION WITH administrative proceedings AGAINST GOOGLE LLC 55.     Google   LLC complained that the Russian authorities had imposed arbitrary and unprecedented fines to punish it for providing a platform for content critical of their policies, in breach of Article   10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority ... 2.     The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, ... for the protection of the reputation or rights of others ...” Admissibility 56.     The Court finds that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Submissions by Google   LLC 57.     Google   LLC submitted that the imposition and enforcement of penalties against it in connection with the YouTube content it hosted constituted an interference with its right to freedom of expression. 58.     As to whether the interference was “prescribed by law”, Google   LLC maintained that section   15.3 of the Information Act lacked the requisite quality of law. The terms “untrue socially important information disseminated under the guise of reliable reports” and “calls ... to extremist activities” were excessively broad and conferred unfettered discretionary powers on the authorities. In addition, the proceedings suffered from serious procedural flaws: no administrative investigation had preceded the prosecution as mandated by domestic law; the courts had assumed jurisdiction over Google   LLC, a US-based entity, without proper service or an opportunity for it to be heard; the turnover-based fines had been unlawful, and no consideration had been given to mitigating factors. 59.     Google   LLC further claimed that the interference pursued no legitimate aim. The domestic courts had not engaged in any substantive analysis of this question, while the Government had declined to participate in the proceedings before the Court. Given the nature of the content targeted by the TDRs, such as expression of political opposition and reporting on the military invasion of Ukraine, and the unprecedented scale of the penalties imposed, the only reasonable inference was that the true aim had been to suppress criticism of the authorities and to deter the hosting of dissenting viewpoints. 60.     Lastly, Google   LLC contended that the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society”. The punitive fines had been imposed for refusing to remove content constituting typical political speech, which enjoys the highest level of protection under the Convention. The measures also disregarded YouTube’s role as a technological platform hosting content created by third parties rather than by Google   LLC itself. The free exchange of ideas through such platforms was fundamentally at odds with a legal framework permitting authorities to impose severe penalties for failing to remove content of which they disapproved. General principles 61.     In order to be justified, an interference with the right to freedom of expression must be “prescribed by law”, pursue one or more of the legitimate aims mentioned in paragraph   2 of Article   10, and be “necessary in a democratic society” (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v.   Hungary [GC], no.   18030/11, §   181, 8   November 2016). The general principles   concerning the question whether an interference with freedom of expression is “necessary in a democratic society” are well established in the Court’s case-law, both generally and in the context of the Internet and social media (see Delfi AS v.   Estonia [GC], no.   64569/09, §§   131-36, ECHR 2015, and Sanchez v.   France