CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s51F7E8B1 { height:43.2pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s41985D7A { height:27.95pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFA4DE089 { height:72.35pt } .s1AD26575 { height:34.25pt } .s5A0A351C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sD4796D70 { height:41.45pt } .s3A3C6A51 { height:2.8pt } .s148EE8B1 { height:41.3pt } .sC45FE089 { height:75.85pt } .sAA164627 { height:69.8pt } .s778F07F { height:98.45pt } .s38E5D7A { height:20.05pt } .sB2941CA5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:9pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sE4C95D7A { height:21.05pt } .s3D45D7A { height:20.65pt } .s55601073 { height:21pt } .s4735D7A { height:20.55pt } .s2865D7A { height:20.85pt } .s98A8263B { height:20.5pt } .s15C7B0A7 { height:13.65pt } .s1479B0A7 { height:13.85pt } .s2541E78A { height:13.9pt } .s2A77B0A7 { height:19.85pt } .s16CBB0A7 { height:14.35pt } .s38705D7A { height:22.85pt } .s38D15D7A { height:22.95pt } .sC5C65D7A { height:26.25pt } .s4775D7A { height:25.25pt } .s794E451F { height:6.65pt } .s358E56A { height:6.3pt } .s38729B7C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5A0A351B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 21 February 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44137/19 Gennadiy Petrovich SHEYDA against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants are Russian non-governmental organisations included in the register of “foreign agents” and their directors (see Ecodefence and Others v.   Russia , no.   9988/13 and 48 others). They complain about unjustified and disproportionate interference with their freedom of expression and association on account of the negative legal consequences they had to face as a result of their registration as “foreign agents”, including forced dissolution and fines for non-compliance with the requirement to label their publications as emanating from a “foreign-agent” organisation.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Has there been a violation of Article   10 of the Convention?   2.     Is the labelling requirement formulated with sufficient clarity? Does the national law prescribe with sufficient clarity what material requires labelling, from where the material should originate or how it should be labelled?   3.     What are the aims pursued by the labelling requirements? Were they necessary in a democratic society? Is the labelling requirement proportionate to the aim pursued, and does it impose an excessive burden on the applicants? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Application no.   64060/19   Was there a violation of Article   11 of the Convention, on account of the forced dissolution of the applicant organisation?   Applications nos.   44137/19 and 64060/19   Was there a violation of Articles   10 and 11 of the Convention on account of the fines imposed on the applicants in relation to their failure to comply with the registration requirement provided for in the Foreign Agents Act?   Applications nos.   44137/19, 14412/20, 40943/20 and 41349/20   1.     Did the imposition of the fine on the applicants constitute an interference with their peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Mamidakis v.   Greece , no.   35533/04, §§   40-48, 11   January 2007)?   3.     Did the domestic courts weigh the amount of a fine against the financial resources of the applicants and the potential impact of the fine on their sustainability? Did the domestic courts consider whether the sanction was proportionate to the legitimate aim that the authorities sought to achieve?   Applications nos.   44137/19 and 14412/20   Was there a violation of the impartiality requirement under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the absence of the prosecuting party from the proceedings (see Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, 20   September 2016)?       APPENDIX   No. Name and Number Introduction date Alleged violation of the labelling requirement Final decision Amount of the fine Other complaints 1 Sheyda v.   Russia   44137/19   11/03/2019   Publications about a youth initiative project on the organisation’s social media account 1) 27   February 2019, Altay Regional Court, RUB   50,000 (Labelling requirement)   Art. 6 – Absence of the prosecuting party from the proceedings   Art. 11 – Requirement to register as a “foreign agent”   Art. 1 Prot. No. 1 – Fine for a violation of the Foreign Agents Act 2) 11   February 2019, Altay Regional Court, RUB   50,000 (Failure to register as a “foreign agent”) 2 Movement for Human Rights and Ponomarev   64060/19   22/11/2019   Mr   Ponomarev’s article in a Russian newspaper about totalitarianism in Russia 1) 6   September 2019, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 (The courts held that, so long as the publication mentioned Mr   Ponomarev’s position as that of the director of the Movement for Human Rights (a “foreign-agent” organisation), it should have been labelled as emanating from a “foreign agent” organisation. The court dismissed the applicant’s argument that the original version of the article did not contain any reference to his position of the director, the relevant reference having been added by the editorial board. It held that the applicant had not made sufficient efforts to publish the article as a private individual.) Art. 11 – Requirement to register as a “foreign agent”   Art. 11 – Dissolution of the applicant organisation 2) 22   May 2019, Moscow Town Court, RUB   300,000 (Failure to register as a “foreign agent”) 3) 6   May 2020, Supreme Court of Russia (Forced dissolution of the organisation) 3 Moshel and Khasdey Yerushalaim v.   Russia   14412/20   02/03/2020 Posts on Ms   Moshel’ personal Facebook page relating to Khasdey Yerushalaim’s activities, such as a family camp and a video about the camp, and a cemetery cleaning operation in which the organisation’s logo is visible. 2   September 2019, Saratov Regional Court, RUB   150,000 (The courts rejected the applicant’s arguments that she had posted links to a publication relating to an event organised by Khasdey Yerushalaim rather than publication itself because the information posted contained references to the date and time of the event and the organisation’s logo. Art. 6 – Absence of the prosecuting party from the proceedings   Art. 1 Prot. No. 1 – Fine for a violation of the Foreign Agents Act 4 Public Verdict v.   Russia   40943/20   18/08/2020 11 publications on various issues regarding human rights in Russia posted on the applicant organisation’s website and social media accounts (VK and Facebook).       18   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   400,000 (The courts held that a “foreign agent” organisation must label every published or distributed material.) Art. 1 Prot. No. 1 – Fine for a violation of the Foreign Agents Act 5 Taubina v.   Russia   41349/20   18/08/2020 Publications on human rights in Russia posted to the organisation’s social media accounts (VK and Facebook) and unspecified videos on YouTube 1) 18   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   250,000 (The courts held that a “foreign agent” organisation must label every material which it published or distributed.) Art. 1 Prot. No. 1 – Fine for a violation of the Foreign Agents Act   2) 14   August 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 (The courts held that it was necessary to label all materials originating from a “foreign agent” organisation. The courts did not identify any particular video or other publication on a YouTube channel which did not contain the label.) 6 Rachinskiy and International Memorial v.   Russia   49654/20   16/10/2020 Unspecified materials posted to a social media group (VK) dedicated to the fight against authoritarianism; websites listing staff of the USSR’s security bodies (nkvd.memo.ru), victims of political repressions in the USSR (base.memo.ru) and the fight against authoritarianism (1968.memo.ru) Mr   Rachinskiy:   1) 16   January 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 2) 26   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 3) 26   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 4) 26   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 5) 28   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 6) 28   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 7) 26   May 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 7) 28   May 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 9) 10   September 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 10) 9 July 2021, Moscow City Court, RUB 300,000 International Memorial: 1) 16   January 2020, Moscow City Court,   RUB   300,000 2) 16   January 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 3) 12   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 4) 28   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 5) 28   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000, 6) 28   February 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 7) 26   May 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   400,000 8) 26   November 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 9) 12 March 2021, Moscow City Court, RUB 500,000 7 Memorial Human Rights Centre and Cherkasov v.   Russia   53756/20   3   December 2020 Materials posted to social networks and a website Mr   Cherkasov:     1) 4   March 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 (Facebook) 2) 4   March 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 (Twitter) 3) 4   March 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 (MHRC’s website) 4) 26   May 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   100,000 (VK) Memorial Human Rights Centre:   1) 26   May 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 (MHRC’s website) 2) 26   May 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 (Twitter) 3) 10   September 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 (Memorial Ingushetiya’s Facebook) 4) 18   December 2020, Moscow City Court, RUB   300,000 (VK)