CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBA6BCE26 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD91B6282 { width:117.75pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 31662/17 Oksana Vladimirovna BORISOVA against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   March 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 10 of the Convention concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW    Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.    Complaints under Article 10 of the Convention (various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints about the violation of their freedom of expression are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the measures complained of by the applicants did not go beyond what was “necessary in a democratic society” to protect the rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 26 March 2026.     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)     31662/17 19/04/2017 Oksana Vladimirovna BORISOVA 1993   Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich Moscow On 01/02/2015 the applicant published a post in a public group on the Russian social network vk.com in which she criticised professional abilities of Mr. A., a police officer, describing him inter alia as “moron”. Following civil proceedings brought by Mr. A., the applicant was found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for defaming the claimant’s honour and dignity. 13/02/2017, Supreme Cour of Russia Award of RUB 30,000 to Mr. A. Order to publish a rebuttal of the disputed passages     73109/17 25/09/2017 Nikolay Nikolayevich ZAYTSEV 1975   Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg On 01/03/2015 the applicant posted on an anonymous Youtube account a video which had been created by a third party at his request and in which it was alleged that two businessmen, Mr. Pi. and Mr. Ku., had set up an illegal network of several gaming rooms with slot machines and that their activity had been ‘protected’ by Mr. Tk. and Mr. Zh., the former Prosecutor of the Orenburg region and Prosecutor of the city of Orenburg respectively. Following criminal complaints lodged by Mr. Pi. and Mr. Ku., the applicant was convicted of a criminal offence under Article 128.1 of the Russian Criminal Code (libel) in regard of the four persons mentioned above. The domestic courts found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the veracity of the facts alleged in the video. 28/03/2017, Tsentralniy District Court of Orenburg Fine of RUB 350,000 Award of RUB 180,000 cumulatively to Mr. Pi., Mr. Ku., Mr. Tk. and Mr. Zh. in respect of non-pecuniary damages     5411/20 27/12/2019   OOO KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA - KALUGA 1995   Arapova Galina Yuryevna Voronezh On 18/05/2018 and 23/05/2018, two publications appeared in the applicant company’s media, denouncing the felling of trees near a local school in order to build a car park, allegedly at the initiative of two members of the municipal council, Mr K.S. and Mr S.P. Following civil proceedings brought by Mr K.S. and Mr S.P., the applicant was found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for defamation of the applicants’ honour and dignity. In particular, the domestic courts found that the statements to the effect that the felling had been carried out on the applicants’ initiative were untrue. 27/06/2019, Supreme Court of Russia Award of RUB 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and RUB 20,000 for legal costs to each of the claimants Order to publish a rebuttal of the disputed passage