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 } .s5E503E34 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF GRITSEVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 11146/16 and 23 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 Gritsevich 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 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, 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, except for the complaints by the second applicant in application no.   11146/16 which were lodged out of time and are accordingly inadmissible. It further finds that those complaints disclose 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   5: Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, 8   October 2019, concerning excessive recourse to the escorting procedure and detention; 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 has been served. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     The second applicant in application no.   11146/16 also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     As noted above, his complaints were submitted belatedly and therefore do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. They are accordingly declared inadmissible in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     The Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and also costs and expenses to some of the applicants, if claimed, and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and the other complaints under the well ‑ established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the complaints by the second applicant in application no.   11146/16 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction where applicable. 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/registration   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]     11146/16 08/02/2016 Anna Arnoldovna GRITSEVICH   ****   Vladimir Viktorovich KIMAYEV 1959 Aleksandr Vasilyevich POPKOV Sochi Acting on a journalistic assignment from a media outlet, the first applicant, Ms   Gritsevich, attended a protest rally on 29/06/2015; she was subsequently convicted under Article   19.3 of the CAO in relation to her failure to cease participating in that rally. 11/08/2015 Krasnodar Regional Court (the first applicant only) 3 days’ detention disproportionate measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies Butkevich v.   Russia, no.   5865/07, §§   121-40, 13   February 2018   7,500, to the first applicant, of which 500 euros to be paid directly to the account of Mr Popkov, the first applicant’s representative     25302/19 24/04/2019   COGITA PUBLISHING HOUSE 2014   Ivan Yuryevich PAVLOV St Petersburg The applicant publisher was prohibited from distributing in Russia a book by Polish author Jan Nowak-Jeziorański titled "Eastern Reflections: collection of articles and interviews 1991-2003" under section   10(6) of the Information Technologies Act on grounds that the book contained anti-Russian orientation, unreliable presentation of historical events about the USSR’s actions during WWII, and was deemed to form negative images of the USSR and Russia in readers, potentially threatening Russian society. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 26/10/2018 Book banned in Russia Unjustified restrictions on historical debate RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no.   44561/11, §§   111-12, 11   May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article   10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts)   7,500     4658/20 26/12/2019 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich LUKICHEV 1994   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article   205.2 §   2 of the Criminal Code for having posted on his Telegram channel "Prometey", on 31/10/2018, a text dedicated to a 17-year-old’s self-immolation at the FSB building in Arkhangelsk, describing him as a "hero who sacrificed his life in the fight against injustice" whilst suggesting non-violent alternatives for anarchist struggle. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 26/06/2019 Fine of RUB   300,000 Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for political commentary 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     7435/21 26/12/2020 Grigoriy Yuryevich SEVERIN 1977   Ilya Vladimirovich SIVOLDAYEV Voronezh The applicant was convicted under Article   20.3 of the CAO for having published drawings mocking the Russian Federation President, using swastika symbols to compare government methods to the Nazi regime. Voronezh Regional Court, 26/06/2020 12 days’ imprisonment Imprisonment excessive for satirical political expression RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no.   44561/11, §§   111-12, 11   May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article   10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts) Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Sentence enforced before the appeal was heard,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500     57131/21 18/11/2021   TWITTER, INC. 2007   Jonathan PRICE London, UK The applicant company was held liable for failing to remove content after takedown requests from Roskomnadzor concerning posts related to protests in support of Aleksey Navalnyy. The requests were based on decisions of the General Prosecutor’s Office but extended beyond the specified URLs. Taganskiy District Court of Moscow, 17/05/2021, 08/09/2021 Fines totalling RUB   27,900,000 Suppression of political content; excessive penalties Google LLC and Others v.   Russia, no.   37027/22, §§   61-83, 8   July 2025   Not claimed     58338/21 18/11/2021 Aleksey Nikolayevich PODNEBESNYY 1978   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow (1) The applicant was convicted under Article   20.2 §   5 of the CAO for having participated in a manifestation in support of Navalnyy in Nizhniy Novgorod on 31/01/2021 whilst working as a journalist reporting on the event.   (2) The applicant was convicted under Article   20.3.3 §   1 of the CAO for having posted on social media the text message "Podnebsnyy (applicant’s name) - for peace!". (1) Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 11/08/2021   (2) Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, 24/08/2022 (1) Fine of RUB   10,000   (2) Fine of RUB   30,000 (1) Persecution of journalist for reporting on peaceful assembly   (2) Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of legislation criminalising discrediting of armed forces for peaceful expression Pentikäinen v.   Finland [GC], no.   11882/10, 20   October 2015 (journalists covering peaceful rallies), Novaya Gazeta and Others v.   Russia, nos.   11884/22 and 161 others, 11   February 2025 (conviction for discrediting Russian military) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant was taken to a police station for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report. There is no indication that the report could not have been prepared on site,   Art. 11 (1) - Freedom of peaceful assembly – arrest during the manifestation and conviction for having participated in it on 31/01/2021,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500     60716/21 24/11/2021 Karim Bekmirzayevich YAMADAYEV 1981   Andrey Vasilyevich SABININ Stavropol The applicant was convicted under Article   205.2 of the Criminal Code for having filmed and uploaded on YouTube and VKontakte an episode of a series about Russia in the near future, where a fictional judge punishes high-ranking officials including President Putin, his spokesperson Peskov, and chairperson of Rosneft Sechin. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 02/09/2021 Fine of RUB   300,000 Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for fictional satirical 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     60839/21 26/11/2021 Svetlana Vladimirovna PROKOPYEVA 1979   Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article   205.2 of the Criminal Code for statements made during her author programme on “Echo of Moscow in Pskov”. She linked a 2018 terrorist act committed by a 17-year-old at a FSB office in Arkhangelsk to the State’s “repressive” conduct and the fabrication of criminal cases. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 06/07/2021 Fine of RUB   500,000 Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for journalistic commentary 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     653/22 20/12/2021 INGUSHETIA PUBLIC MOVEMENT ‘COUNCIL OF INGUSH TRIBAL GROUPS’ 2016   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant organisation was liquidated for allegedly engaging in extremist activities related to the boundary dispute between Ingushetia and Chechnya, criticism of government policies, and failure to comply with NGO reporting requirements. Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia, 01/07/2021 Organisation liquidated Excessively broad interpretation of extremism legislation leading to dissolution of NGO for legitimate political expression Taganrog LRO and Others v.   Russia, nos.   32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)   7,500   9177/22 28/01/2022 META PLATFORMS, INC.     Maya LESTER London, UK The applicant company was held liable for failing to remove content after takedown requests from Roskomnadzor concerning posts related to protests in support of Aleksey Navalnyy. The requests were based on decisions of the General Prosecutor’s Office but went beyond the specified URLs. Taganskiy District Court of Moscow, 28/07/2021, 19/08/2021, 06/10/2021, 24/11/2021 Fines totalling RUB   70,000,000 Suppression of political speech; excessive penalties Google LLC and Others v.   Russia, no.   37027/22, §§   61-83, 8   July 2025   Not claimed   9512/22 12/02/2022 Aleksandr Sergeyevich PROKUDIN 1990   Mansur Idrisovich GILMANOV Podolsk The applicant was found liable under Article   13.15 §   9 of the CAO for streaming a video on Instagram, in which he accused President Putin of poisoning Mr   Navalnyy and of possessing an expensive palace. Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver, 13/08/2021 Fine of RUB   30,000 Extensive interpretation of fake-news legislation to suppress political criticism Avagyan v.   Russia, no.   36911/20, 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   12451/22 08/02/2022 Daniil Antonovich SHESTAKOV 1997   Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK St Petersburg The applicant was convicted under Article   354.1 of the Criminal Code for having posted online a photograph of General Vlasov regarded as endorsing Nazism. Fourth Cassation Court, 26/08/2021 9 months’ community service, withholding 15 percent of wages and seizure of personal computer Criminalisation of historical debate about past events RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no.   44561/11, §§   111-12, 11   May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article   10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts)     7,500   19663/22 05/04/2022 Olga Ramilyevna ASEINOVA 1984   Vladimir Yuryevich PROTASOV Yoshkar-Ola The applicant was convicted under Article   20.1 of the CAO for having published on VKontakte information concerning the COVID situation which the domestic courts found to be untrue. Volzhsky Town Court of Mari El Republic, 21/10/2021 Fine of RUB   30,000 Incomplete assessment of fake-news legislation constituent elements Avagyan v.   Russia, no.   36911/20, 29   April 2025   7,500   20981/22 01/04/2022 Dmitriy Ivanovich SMOKOV 1983   Mikhail Vladislavovich UVAROV Tyumen The applicant was convicted under Article   20.3 §   1 of the CAO for having published on VKontakte in 2013 an excerpt from a film in which the swastika is shown. Khanty-Mansiysk-Ugra Regional Court, 29/11/2021 Fine of RUB   1,000 Expectation to anticipate future legal prohibitions not yet in force at the time of the posting Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v.   Russia, nos.   37949/18 and 83 others, §   111, 18   June 2024 (retrospective application of the prohibitions)   7,500   29995/22 28/05/2022 Nataliya Borisovna TYSHKEVICH 1994   Andrey Vasilyevich SABININ Stavropol The applicant was convicted of Nazi symbols propaganda for having posted on her personal Instagram page in 2017 a picture of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) flag. Moscow City Court, 11/04/2022 15 days’ imprisonment Expectation to anticipate future legal prohibitions not yet in force at the time of the posting Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v.   Russia, nos.   37949/18 and 83 others, §   111, 18   June 2024 (retrospective application of the prohibitions) Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Sentence executed before the appeal was heard,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings 7,500   30351/22 31/05/2022 Nikolay Nikolayevich PLATOSHKIN 1965   Denis Aleksandrovich TIMCHENKO Moscow The applicant was convicted under Articles   212 §   1.1 and 207.1 of the Criminal Code for having uploaded YouTube videos calling for peaceful demonstration in Moscow and criticising COVID-19 measures implemented by the authorities. Second Cassation Court, 10/03/2022 4 years and 9 months’ suspended imprisonment and fine of RUB   500,000 Excessive sanction for calls to peaceful protest and political expression Olga Kudrina v.   Russia, no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct), Avagyan v.   Russia, no.   36911/20, 29   April 2025 (fake-news legislation)   7,500   32768/22 15/06/2022 Darya Andreyevna SERENKO 1993   Daniil Borisovich BERMAN Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article   20.3 §   1 of the CAO for having published on Instagram, on 27/11/2021, a photo containing symbols associated with the Navalnyy Campaign Headquarters movement, whose activities had been banned as extremist in Russia. Moscow City Court, 15/02/2022 15 days’ imprisonment Excessively broad interpretation of the concept of extremism Taganrog LRO and Others v.   Russia, nos.   32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Sentence enforced before the appeal was heard,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant’s arrest and detention on 08/02/2022 exceeded three hours and was carried out solely for the purpose of preparing a record of an administrative offence. 7,500   35119/22 04/07/2022 Darya Vladimirovna POLYUDOVA 1989   Leonid Alekseyevich SOLOVYEV Moscow The applicant was convicted under Articles   280 §   1 and 205.2 §   2 of the Criminal Code for having made a real-time video recording a commentary on armed attacks against FSB officers near the FSB building in Moscow on 19/12/2019, and for a post about Chechen field commander Shamil Basayev. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 16/03/2022 6 years’ imprisonment Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism and extremism legislation for political commentary 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   36522/22 07/07/2022 Mikhail Yevgenyevich ALFEROV 1985       The applicant was convicted under Articles   354.1 §   3 and 319 of the Criminal Code for having posted a video on YouTube on 09/05/2020 concerning Victory Day. In the video, he criticised the decoration of the city with flags and posters against the backdrop of poverty, expressed dissatisfaction with the excessive use of the St George ribbon, and referred to the copies of the Victory Banner displayed on residential buildings as “victorious rags”. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 23/06/2022 470 hours’ community service Criminalisation of political expression RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v.   Russia, no.   44561/11, §§   111-12, 11   May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article   10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts)   7,500   39211/22 29/07/2022 Aleksandr Andreyevich RYBKIN 1996   Aleksey Sergeyevich KALUGIN St Petersburg The applicant was convicted under Article   20.3 §   1 of the Code of Administrative Offences for having acted as a news anchor for the political party "The Other Russia of Eduard Limonov", using the party’s symbols in a YouTube video published on 22/10/2021. Moscow City Court, 29/03/2022 14 days’ imprisonment Excessively broad interpretation of the concept of extremism Taganrog LRO and Others v.   Russia, nos.   32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158-59, 7   June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Detention at the police station from 10.30   a.m. on 24/01/2022 to 10.10   a.m. on 25/01/2022, in excess of three hours,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Sentence enforced before the appeal was heard 7,500   46140/22 18/08/2022 Nadezhda Aleksandrovna BELOVA 1983   Kirill Yevgenyevich ERLIKHMAN Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article   205.2 of the Criminal Code for having left sympathetic comments under internet news posts about the 17-year-old who blew himself up at the local FSB office in Arkhangelsk in 2018. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 19/04/2022 Fine of RUB   390,000 Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for commentary 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)   11,000   3072/23 11/01/2023 Oleg Yevgenyevich MAKURIN 1975   Tatyana Borisovna OKUSHKO Strasbourg The applicant was convicted under Article   205.2 of the Criminal Code for having posted a note on his VKontakte page on 21/12/2019. In the post, he expressed negative views towards the Federal Security Service (FSB), referring to several terrorist attacks on regional FSB offices that had occurred between 2017 and 2019. Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 13/09/2022 Fine of RUB   300,000 Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for political commentary 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)   10,500   30791/23 20/06/2023 Armen Vardanovich ARAMYAN 1997   Vladimir Aleksandrovich METELKIN 1994 Andrey Vasilyevich SABININ Stavropol The applicants, editors of the student magazine DOXA, were convicted under Article   151.2 §   2 of the Criminal Code for having incited minors to participate in protests following the poisoning of opposition politician Aleksey Navalnyy. Second Cassation Court, 21/02/2023 2 years’ community work Excessive sanction for calls to peaceful forms of protest Olga Kudrina v.   Russia, no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct)   7,500   19101/25 10/06/2025 Ruslan Tabrizovich SHAVEDDINOV 1996   Anna Yevgenyevna BOCHILO Barnaul The applicant, a former press secretary of Alexei Navalny’s presidential campaign and employee of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, was designated as a "foreign agent" on 22/07/2022. The Ministry of Justice cited his social media publications, distribution of materials from independent journalists and media outlets previously recognised as "foreign agents", and receipt of funding from the Foundation for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights, previously designated as a "foreign agent". 17/04/2025, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Designated as a foreign agent Foreign-agent designation is arbitrary and not necessary in a democratic society Ecodefence and Others v.   Russia, nos.   9988/13 and 60 others, 14   June 2022, and Kobaliya and Others v.   Russia, nos.   39446/16 and 105 others, 22   October 2024 Art. 8 (1) - interference with the right to reputation, and inability to forge and maintain relationship with others in the professional and social sphere 7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.