CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC278ABC0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s19646158 { width:117.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF KUDRYAVTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 3198/20 and 25 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 January 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kudryavtsev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 7.     The applicants primarily complained of the various restrictions imposed on their right to freedom of expression. They relied, in particular, on Article   10 of the Convention. 8.     In the cases listed in the relevant case-law column in the appendix, the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those raised in the applicants’ cases. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article   35 § 1 of the Convention (see   Saakashvili v.   Georgia   (dec.), nos.   6232/20   and   22394/20, §§   46-59, 1   March 2022, in which the Court addressed the   COVID-related extension of the period in question),   the Court has not identified any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. In particular, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not examine the matter in accordance with the principles established in the Court’s case-law. 10.     The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and disclosing a breach of Article   10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11 .     Some applicants submitted additional complaints, as listed in the appended table, which raise issues under the Convention in light of the Court’s well-established case-law. These complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in accordance with its case-law: see, in relation to Article   6: Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, 20   September 2016, concerning the conduct of administrative-offence trials in the absence of a prosecutor; Article   8: Kobaliya and Others v.   Russia , nos.   39446/16 and 106 others, §§ 103-16, 22   October 2024, concerning restrictions on the private life of individuals designated as “foreign agents”, and Article   2 of Protocol No. 7: Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5 others, §§   179-91, 10   April 2018, concerning the examination of an appeal after the sentence had been served. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     Some applicants also raised additional complaints under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     The Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages and also costs and expenses. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention and other complaints under the well-established case-law admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remainder of the complaints; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention (various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Summary of facts Final decision Date Name of the court Penalty (award, fine, imprisonment) Legal issues Relevant case ‑ law Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     3198/20 10/12/2019 Grigoriy Andreyevich KUDRYAVTSEV 1984   Anton Sergeyevich GRACHEV Straßkirchen (Germany) The applicant was convicted under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for having set up in St Petersburg, on 3 April 2019, a makeshift tombstone bearing the inscription "PUTIN, 1952-2019, BETRAYER OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE". St Petersburg City Court, 11/06/2019 9 days’ imprisonment Imprisonment excessive for a symbolic protest action Olga Kudrina v. Russia, no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500     12661/20 26/02/2020 Aleksey Anatolyevich KUNGUROV 1977   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article 20.3.1 of the CAO for having published on LiveJournal, on 18 January 2019, a blog post titled "Is it permissible to call the Russian people shit?" discussing Russian-speaking population’s characteristics in a coarse satirical style. While containing no calls to violence or obscene language, a forensic examination by Tyumen State University found the article contained signs of national dignity humiliation and incitement to hatred. Tyumen Regional Court, 19/11/2019 15 days’ imprisonment Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of hate speech Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code) Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving the prison sentence immediately after the first-instance judgment had been delivered; no suspensive effect of appeal 7,500     25500/20 24/06/2020 Murat Osmanovich DASKIYEV 1949   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his video criticising the regional authorities’ plans to waive claims on the Prigorodnyy District in favour of the Republic of North Ossetia. 24/09/2019, Magasskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia Fine of RUB   15,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500     26041/20 25/05/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich KONONOV 1982   Aleksey Vladimirovich BUSHMAKOV Yekaterinburg The applicant was convicted under Article 319 of the Criminal Code for having published on YouTube, on 12/06/2019, a video criticising police inaction by insulting a police officer, using the terms "coward" and "administrative impotent". Irbitskiy District Court of Sverdlovsk Region, 21/01/2020 160 hours’ community service Criminal sanction excessive for criticism of authorities without evidence of incitement to violence Karuyev v. Russia, no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities/ State officials)   7,500     45234/20 29/09/2020 Yekaterina Olegovna BILBAO 1973   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in her social media post about insufficient medicine to treat COVID-19 at Lipetsk regional infectious diseases hospital, where she sought to collect funds for purchasing basic medicine, relying on information published on the local administration’s official website. 06/07/2020, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk Fine of RUB   30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500     51386/20 30/10/2020 Alan Aleksandrovich DZUGAYEV 1989   Yuliya FEDOTOVA Yekaterinburg The applicant was convicted under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for having placed a coffin with the sign "Elections 2020" before the building of the election commission of Yessentuki on 24/08/2020. Stavropol Regional Court, 12/09/2020 5 days’ imprisonment Imprisonment excessive for a symbolic protest action Olga Kudrina v. Russia, no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500     53098/20 16/11/2020 Anton Igorevich NOVIKOV 1989   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1 of the CAO for having posted a comment on VKontakte in which he criticised the President of Russia using an obscene word. Smolensk Regional Court, 15/07/2020 Fine of RUB   30,000 Fine excessive for political criticism Karuyev v. Russia, no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities/ State officials) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500     1244/21 04/12/2020 Ilya Vyacheslavovich AREFYEV 1984   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1 § 3 of the CAO for having published a post on a social network containing a negative assessment of the President. 17/06/2020, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic Fine of RUB   30,000 Fine excessive for political criticism Karuyev v. Russia, no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities/ State officials) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500     6737/21 23/12/2020 Mikhail Nikolayevich MATVEYEV 1968   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his Twitter post concerning medical negligence regarding two residents of Novokuibyshevsk infected with COVID-19 after their trip abroad. 25/06/2020, Samara Regional Court Fine of RUB   45,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - 7,500   9640/21 25/01/2021 Natalya Andreyevna PAVLOVA 1972   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in her article concerning cemetery arrangements for burying the COVID-19 victims in Ufa. 12/11/2020, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ufa Fine of RUB   30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025   7,500   11392/21 04/02/2021 Vladimir Leonidovich MALTSEV 1981   Yekaterina Viktorovna ABASHINA Moscow The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his social media comment expressing doubts concerning the credibility of COVID-19 statistics in the Perm Region and stating that he knew of at least four death cases.   05/08/2020, Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Perm Fine of RUB   15,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500   13338/21 18/02/2021 Tatyana Mikhaylovna ZNAK 1962   Roman Yevgenyevich KACHANOV Yekaterinburg The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in her Facebook comment about a shortage of hospital beds due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 19/08/2020, Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg Fine of RUB   15,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025   7,500   13787/21 10/02/2021 Aelita Yevgenyevna YEROKHINA 1982   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in her VKontakte post containing four photographs with comments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. 15/09/2020, Perm Regional Court 300 hours of forced labour Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025   7,500   15080/21 13/03/2021 Sergey Ivanovich LAVROV 1991   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article 205.2 § 2 of the Criminal Code for having created several communities on VKontakte with headings criticising Vladimir Putin and posting messages supporting revolutionary activity in Russia. 14/09/2020, Military Court of Appeal 5 years’ imprisonment Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for political criticism without evidence of incitement to violence. Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)   7,500   20092/21 07/04/2021 Aytakhadzhi Visarkhadzhieyevich KHALIMOV 1993   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code for having saved and watched videos about the war in Chechnya on his social network page, which, according to the conviction, justified the actions of Chechen separatists. 07/10/2020, Military Court of Appeal 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for political content without evidence of incitement to violence. Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)   7,500   23584/21 16/04/2021 Nikolay Valeryevich SOKUROV 1992   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article 5.26 § 2 of the CAO for having published on his social network page materials related to Pastafarianism criticising the organisation of the Orthodox church, which, in the opinion of an Orthodox priest, had insulted the feelings of the adherents to the Christian religion. 12/11/2020, Surgut Town Court Fine of RUB   30,000 Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of religious offence legislation Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500   24669/21 16/04/2021 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich CHERNOV 1979   Yekaterina Mikhaylovna SHMYGINA Voronezh The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his article analysing COVID-19 statistics in Russia, which allegedly contradicted official statistics on the matter. 19/10/2020, Sovetskiy District Court of Bryansk Fine of RUB   30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025   7,500   28600/21 20/05/2021 Vladimir Valentinovich SHASHKOV 1965   Alan Olegovich GAMAZOV Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO for having posted on Odnoklassniki, on 18/04/2021, a link to Navalnyy’s twitter account announcing that a protest in his support would be held on 21 April. 27/04/2021, Moscow City Court 7 days’ imprisonment Imprisonment excessive for sharing information about peaceful assembly Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019 (conviction for calls to participate in public events) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Sentence executed before the appeal was heard. 7,500   31983/21 02/06/2021 Albert Nailevich KHALIMOV 1988   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his VKontakte repost concerning the Russian COVID-19 vaccine. 15/03/2021, Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Perm Region Fine of RUB   30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025   7,500   38244/21 14/07/2021 Vladislav Yuryevich SHULGA 1981   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article 20.3.1 of the CAO for having commented on a VK publication criticising prosecutors, police officers and judges, calling them criminals, dregs and swindlers. 30/03/2021, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Fine of RUB   10,000 Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of hate speech Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)   7,500   47068/21 09/09/2021 Ramay Zagidullovich YULDASHEV 1970   Vladimir Yuryevich PROTASOV Yoshkar-Ola The applicant was convicted under Article 20.3.1 of the CAO for having posted on VKontakte content concerning the relations between two ethnic groups (Bashkirs and Tatars). 10/03/2021, Supreme Court of the Mari El Republic, Fine of RUB   10,000 Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of hate speech Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)   7,500   50526/21 29/09/2021 Vyacheslav Valeryevich YEGOROV 1977   Mariya Olegovna EYSMONT Moscow The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his Facebook and Telegram posts suggesting that many residents of Kolomna had already recovered from COVID-19, based on publicly available data and presented as a version. 31/03/2021, Kolomna Town Court of the Moscow Region Fine of RUB   30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500   57820/21 13/11/2021 Darya Aleksandrovna BELYAYEVA 1991   Irina Vladimirovna KHRUNOVA Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1 § 3 of the CAO for having posted a critical comment on her Facebook page regarding court proceedings concerning the construction of a church, where public access was denied due to COVID-19 restrictions. 16/06/2021, Sverdlovsk Regional Court, Fine of RUB   30,000 Fine excessive for political criticism Karuyev v. Russia, no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities/ State officials) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500   29580/22 28/05/2022 Dmitriy Petrovich KONOPLEV 1962   Danil Yuryevich VASIN Orel The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his Telegram group post concerning the alleged consequences for reproductive health of COVID-19 vaccination. 28/01/2022, Pervomayskiy District Court of Novosibirsk Fine of RUB   15,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500   49404/22 05/10/2022 Lyudmila Ivanovna LEONTYEVA 1944   Andrey Vasilyevich SABININ Stavropol The applicant was found guilty under Article 13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in publications concerning attempts to bankrupt an agricultural co-operative. 10/08/2022, Stavropol Regional Court Fine of RUB   150,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference; excessive sanction Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§ 30-39, 29 April 2025 Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500   9746/25 18/03/2025 Kirill Vladimirovich FEDOROV 1992   Anna Yevgenyevna BOCHILO Barnaul The applicant is a gender psychologist and an LGBT rights activist. On 02/09/2022 the Ministry of Justice designated the applicant as a “foreign agent”. The applicant’s challenge to this designation was unsuccessful. 23/01/2025, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Designation as a foreign agent Foreign-agent designation is arbitrary and not necessary in a democratic society Kobaliya and Others v. Russia, nos. 39446/16 and 106 others, 22 October 2024 Art. 8 (1) - Private life – interference with the private life as a result of his criminal conviction and designation as a foreign agent 7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.