CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mai 2023

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE9DB0247 { 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; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s5303B780 { 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; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .s143C0E0F { 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; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB23EAC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } Published on 5 June 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 5411/20 OOO Komsomolskaya Pravda - Kaluga against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 19 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The twelve applications under consideration concern various restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression experienced by journalists and media outlets in the Russian Federation between 2018 and 2022. For details of the events and domestic proceedings in each of the applications, see Annex II. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTION UNDER ARTICLE 10   1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the Russian authorities discourage the participation of the media in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Jersild v. Denmark , 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298, and NIT   S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 28470/12, § 178, 5 April 2022)?   CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 10   2.     (a)     As regards applications nos. 5411/20 and 16278/21, did the domestic courts apply in the civil defamation proceedings against the applicants the standards that were in conformity with the standards of the Court’s case-law concerning freedom of the media (see Skudayeva v. Russia , no. 24014/07, 5   March 2019)?   (b)     As regards application no.   14662/21, was the applicant’s administrative-offence conviction for the presumed “organisation” of a peaceful yet unauthorised assembly foreseeable (see Semir Güzel v. Turkey , no. 29483/09, § 34, 13 September 2016, and Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no.   64569/09, § 121, ECHR 2015)?   (c)     As regards applications nos.   22817/21, 43551/21, 53086/21 and   57924/21, did the applicable legal framework establish safeguards capable of protecting individuals from excessive and arbitrary effects of sweeping blocking measures (see Engels v. Russia , no. 61919/16, §   34, 23 June 2020)?   (d)     As regards applications nos. 4045/22 and 28925/22, were the reasons given by the authorities for the searches of the journalists’ homes “relevant” and “sufficient”? Having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities, was the interference proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued? Did it correspond to a “pressing social need” (see Nagla v. Latvia , no. 73469/10, §§ 93-94, 16 July 2013)?   (e)     As regards application no. 11884/22, were the applicants afforded a measure of protection against arbitrariness required by the rule of law in a democratic society when their licences were revoked (see Centro Europa   7   S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 139-43, ECHR   2012, and Mukhin v. Russia , no.   3642/10, §§ 179-82, 14 December 2021)?   (f)     As regards application no. 53150/22, does Article 20.3.3 § 2 of the CAO meet the “quality of law” requirement? Was Mr Azar’s administrative ‑ offence conviction for having published an anti-war statement on a social media account “necessary in a democratic society”?   CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN APPLICATION No. 11884/22   3.     Has there been a breach of the obligations under Article 34 of the Convention on account of the Government’s failure to comply with the interim measure indicated to them (see Ecodefence and Others v. Russia , nos.   9988/13 and 60 others, §§ 192-95, 14 June 2022)?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 10 (see Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and   4 others, §§ 163-76, 15 November 2018)?   ANNEX I : LIST OF CASES   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant/Applicant company Profession/Function Year of Birth/Registration Place of Residence/Operation Nationality/State of Incorporation Represented by 1. 5411/20 OOO Komsomolskaya Pravda - Kaluga v.   Russia 27/12/2019 OOO KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA – KALUGA Founder of the “ Kaluga Crossroads ” regional newspaper and of the www.kp40.ru online media outlet 1995 Kaluga Russia Ms Galina Yuryevna ARAPOVA 2. 14662/21 Smirnov v.   Russia 16/02/2021 Mr Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV Editor-in-chief of the MediaZona media outlet 1975 Moscow Russian Mr Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK 3. 16278/21 ZAO Redaktsyya ‘Nezavisimoy Gazety’ v.   Russia 22/03/2021 ZAO REDAKTSYYA ‘NEZAVISIMOY GAZETY’ Editorial board of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper 1996 Moscow Russia Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich YAGELNITSKIY 4. 16896/21 Smirnov v.   Russia 13/03/2021 Mr Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV Editor-in-chief of the MediaZona media outlet 1975 Moscow Russian Mr Grigoriy Sergeyevich CHERVONNYY 5. 22817/21 OOO ZP v.   Russia 23/04/2021 OOO ZP Editorial board of the MediaZona media outlet 2014 Moscow Russia Mr Damir Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV   6. 43551/21 The Independent Barentsobserver As v.   Russia 12/08/2021 THE INDEPENDENT BARENTSOBSERVER AS Media outlet 2015 Kirkenes Norway (accredited before the Russian MFA) Mr Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV 7. 53086/21 Albats and OOO   Novyye Vremena v.   Russia 07/10/2021 Ms Yevgeniya Markovna ALBATS Editor-in-chief of the New Times media outlet 1958 Moscow Russian OOO Novyye Vremena Founder, editorial board, and publisher of the New Times online media outlet 2013 Moscow Russia Mr Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN   8. 57924/21 Smirnov v.   Russia 13/11/2021 Mr Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV Editor-in-chief of the MediaZona media outlet 1975 Moscow Russian Mr Damir Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV   9. 4045/22 Anin v. Russia 12/12/2021 Mr Roman Aleksandrovich ANIN Journalist, editor-in-chief of the Vazhnyye Istorii media outlet 1986 Yaroslavl Russian     Mr Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN   10. 11884/22 Novaya Gazeta and Others v.   Russia 03/03/2022 ANO “Redaktsionno-Izdatelskiy Dom ‘NOVAYA   GAZETA’” Publisher of the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, the Novaya Rasskaz Gazeta online media outlet 1998 Russia   Mr Dmitriy Andreyevich MURATOV Editor-in-chief of the Novaya Gazeta newspaper 1961 Moscow Russian   OOO Telekanal Dozhd Founder of the Dozhd television channel (TV Rain) 2008 Moscow Russia       Ms Natalya Vladimirovna SINDEYEVA Chief executive official of OOO Telekanal Dozhd 1971 Moscow Russian Mr Yaroslav Sergeyevich KOZHEUROV 11. 28925/22 Badanin and Others v. Russia 26/05/2022 Mr Roman Sergeyevich BADANIN Journalist, editor-in-chief of the Proekt media outlet 1976 Moscow Russian   Ms Mariya Viktorovna ZHOLOBOVA Journalist 1988 Zvenigorod Russian         Mr Mikhail Arkadyevich RUBIN Journalist 1988 Moscow Russian Mr Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN   12. 53150/22 Azar v.   Russia 28/10/2022 Mr Ilya Vilyamovich AZAR Journalist 1984 Moscow Russian Mr Leonid Alekseyevich SOLOVYEV ANNEX II: FACTS Applications marked with a plus sign (+) contain, in addition to the main complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, complaints falling under the Court’s well-established case-law. No. Application Subject-matter of the application   Domestic courts Outcome of the domestic proceedings 1. 5411/20 OOO Komsomolskaya Pravda - Kaluga On 18/05/2018 and 23/05/2018 two publications appeared in the applicant company’s media outlets decrying the felling of trees near a local school on the initiative of two members of the Russian State Duma, Mr   K.S. and Mr S.P. who had wished to build a parking lot. Mr K.S. and Mr S.P. brought civil proceedings for defamation claiming, in particular, 500,000   Russian roubles (RUB) each in compensation of non-pecuniary damage. (i)   09/08/2018, Kaluzhskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region: the claimants’ claims dismissed in full owing to the lack of the tarnishing nature of the disseminated statements. (ii)   12/11/2018, Kaluga Regional Court: the first-instance judgment quashed on appeal, a new judgment delivered finding for the claimants and awarding each of them RUB   20,000 in compensation of non-pecuniary damage. (iii)   25/05/2019, a judge of the Kaluga Regional Court: the first cassation appeal rejected. (iv)   27/06/2019, Supreme Court of Russia: the second cassation appeal rejected. 2. 14662/21+ Smirnov On 20/01/2021 Mr Smirnov published on his Facebook page a photo of a Russian punk musician Mr D.S. accompanied by the words “Navalnyy’s Headquarters / D.S. for Navalnyy / 23 January [at] 2 a.m.” (the time of the then planned rally to support Mr Navalnyy). Mr Smirnov never participated in the rally held on 23/01/2021. At 1.40 p.m. on 30/01/2021 the applicant was arrested when leaving his block of flats with a minor son and charged with an administrative offence of the repeated organisation of an unauthorised public event (Art. 20.2 §   8 of the CAO). The police report read that “at 9.43 a.m. on 20/01/2021 [Mr Smirnov] [had] committed the organisation of a public event without lodging a [prior] notification”. Mr Smirnov was released from the police station at 9.50 p.m. on 30/01/2021. At 5 a.m. on 04/02/2021 Mr Smirnov was placed in Sakharovo to serve his administrative-offence conviction. (i)   03/02/2021, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, sentence of twenty ‑ five days of administrative detention in the then overcrowded Sakharovo temporary detention centre. (ii)   08/02/2021, Moscow City Court: conviction upheld, sentence diminished to fifteen days of administrative arrest. 3. 16278/21 ZAO Redaktsiya Nezavisimoy Gazety On 20/06/2019 an article “We shall compound. The truth about the ‘dirty’ oil” was published on the Nezavisimaya Gazeta website ( www.ng.ru ) describing Transneft’s practice of “compounding” crude oil products. On 12/07/2019 Transneft brought civil proceedings against the applicant company “to protect its business reputation” claiming compensation of “non ‑ material (reputational) damage” in the amount of RUB   10,000,000. The domestic courts found for Transneft and made an award in respect of “non ‑ material (reputational) damage” even though the Russian law contains no norms concerning such “non ‑ material (reputational) damage”. (i)   11/11/2019, Commercial Court of Moscow: Transneft’s claims granted in part, ordered a retraction and awarded RUB   1,500,000 in compensation of “non ‑ material (reputational) damage. (ii)   28/01/2020, Ninth Appellate Commercial Court: judgment of 11/11/2019 upheld on appeal in full. (iii)   28/05/2020, Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit: the first cassation appeal dismissed. (iv)   24/09/2020, Supreme Court of Russia: the second cassation appeal dismissed. 4. 16896/21+ Smirnov On 28/05/2020 a series of solo static demonstrations (“rotating solo demonstrations”) was held in Moscow and St Petersburg in support of Mr   Ilya Azar, then recently arrested for his own solo static demonstration. At 3.45 p.m. on that day Mr   Smirnov placed himself next to the police headquarters in Moscow holding a placard that read “Azar stood here, bring him back!”. Three seconds later police officers apprehended Mr   Smirnov. At 4.30 p.m. on the same day he was brought to a police station and placed in a cage. He was released at 9.30 p.m. on 28/05/2020. (i)   15/07/2020, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: conviction under Art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000. (ii)   14/09/2020, Moscow City Court: conviction and sentence upheld in full. 5. 22817/21 OOO ZP On 13/12/2018 MediaZona published online an article covering suicide of Mr   I.P. following his alleged torture by the police. The article read that the deceased had jumped off the roof and indicated the place of his fall. Roskomnadzor put the MediaZona website on its Unified Register of websites containing information prohibited for dissemination in Russia on account of promoting suicide; the applicant company was notified accordingly on 24/12/2018. Following the Roskomnadzor decision, MediaZona removed from the article the details regarding the place and method of suicide, but the ban remained in place. The applicant company lodged an administrative claim seeking to declare the Roskomnadzor’s decision illegal but to no avail. (i)   16/04/2019, Taganskiy District Court of Moscow: the applicant company’s claims against Roskomnadzor dismissed in full. (ii)   16/10/2019, Moscow City Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal in full. (iii)   24/01/2020, Second Cassation Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction: the first cassation appeal rejected. (iv)   23/10/2020, Supreme Court of Russia: the second cassation appeal rejected. 6. 43551/21 The Independent Barentsobserver As On 14/01/2019 the applicant company published online an article describing the life path of a gay man, including his attempted suicide. On 29/01/2019 Roskomnadzor informed the applicant company that the webpage containing the article had been included in the Unified Register of websites containing information prohibited for dissemination in Russia and requested the applicant company to delete the article. The applicant company did not comply with the Roskomnadzor notice. On 18/02/2019 Roskomnadzor blocked access to the entire website in Russia. The applicant company lodged an administrative claim seeking to declare the Roskomnadzor’s decision illegal but to no avail. (i)   25/07/2019, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: the applicant company’s claims against Roskomnadzor dismissed in full. (ii)   22/01/2020, Moscow City Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal in full. (iii)   19/08/2020, Second Cassation Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction: the first cassation appeal rejected. (iv)   12/02/2021, Supreme Court of Russia: the second cassation appeal rejected. 7. 53086/21 Albats and OOO Novyye Vremena On 19/11/2020 an article by Mr Smirnov of MediaZona entitled “Sergey Smirnov on the latest pretext for the blocking of websites” was published on the New Times website ( www.newtimes.ru ). The article concerned the Russian authorities persecuting various groups, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses that had been declared “an extremist organisation”. On 18/01/2021 Roskomnadzor drew up two administrative offence reports under Art. 13.15 § 2 of the CAO in respect of OOO Novyye Vremena and Ms   Albats, respectively, on account of a reference to the Jehovah’s Witnesses without noting that it was an “extremist organisation”. The applicants removed Mr   Smirnov’s article from the website. The domestic courts in two sets of administrative-offence proceedings found the applicants guilty under Art.   13.15 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced to fines. 1.     OOO Novyye Vremena (i)   19/02/2021, Justice of the Peace of Circuit No. 367 of the Tverskoy District of Moscow: a fine of RUB   40,000. (ii)   08/04/2021, Tverskoy District Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal. 2.     Ms Albats (i)   09/03/2021, Justice of the Peace of Circuit No. 367 of the Tverskoy District of Moscow: a fine of RUB 4,000. (ii)   16/04/2021, Tverskoy District Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal. 8. 57924/21+ Smirnov On 11/01/2021 a journalist at MediaZona ( www.zona.media ) attended and reported online on a court hearing involving an alleged member of the Artpodgotovka movement that had been formally prohibited as “extremist” in the Russian Federation. On 01/03/2021 Roskomnadzor drew up an administrative-offence report under Art. 13.15 § 2 of the CAO (abuse of the freedom of the media by disseminating the information concerning an “extremist” organisation) in respect of Mr   Smirnov as the MediaZona editor-in-chief for failing to mention that Artpodgotovka ’s activities were prohibited. The article was immediately corrected to insert the required mention. (i)   01/04/2021, Justice of the Peace of Precinct no. 360 of the Basmannyy District of Moscow: conviction under 13.15 § 2 of the CAO, a fine of RUB   4,000. (ii)   19/05/2021, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow: conviction and sentence upheld in full. 9. 4045/22+ Anin In 2016 Mr Anin published in Novaya Gazeta an article about the then wife of Mr   Igor Sechin, the CEO of Rosneft and was sued by the latter (for the details regarding the violation of Article 10 found in this respect, see Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 83662/17 and 46808/20, 10   January 2023). On 20/09/2016 a criminal investigation was opened into the alleged breach of Ms O.S.’s privacy. It was suspended in April 2017 and resumed in March 2021. On 07/04/2021 a court search warrant was issued in respect of Mr Anin’s flat. On 09/04/2021 the search was conducted, and Mr Anin’s documents, laptops, smartphones, USB and hard drives were seized. (i)   07/04/2021, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow: the search of Mr   Anin’s flat authorised. (ii) 21/06/2021, Moscow City Court: the applicant’s appeal against the search warrant dismissed. 10. 11884/22 Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia 1 .     Novaya Gazeta and Mr Muratov Since 24/02/2022 the Russian authorities imposed on the applicant company a series of restrictive measures that effectively made it impossible for the applicant company to continue its publishing activities. (a)     Four articles published at www.novayagazeta.ru were blocked by Roskomnadzor on the basis of “demands” by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia. (b)     Three sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 13.15 § 9 of the CAO (“disseminating fake information”), opened for using the word “war” in the Novaya Gazeta materials instead of the expression “special military operation”, resulted in fines ranging from RUB   300,000 to RUB   400,000. (c)     Two sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO (“discreditation of the Russian army”), each of which resulted in a fine of RUB   400,000. (d)     All access from the Russian territory to the three websites run by the applicant company ( www.novaya.no , www.novayagazeta.ru , www.novaya.media ) were blocked by Roskomnadzor under section 15.3(2) of the Information Act on the basis of a “demand” by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia. (e)     Licences of two print editions ( Novaya Gazeta and Novaya Rasskaz Gaze ta) and of the electronic media ( www.novayagazeta.ru ) were revoked on the basis of judgments delivered in the proceedings initiated by Roskomnadzor , all activities of the media terminated. The applicants brought administrative proceedings challenging the restrictive measures but to no avail. On 08/03/2022 the Court decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation the following interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court): “to abstain until further notice from actions and decisions aimed at full blocking and termination of the activities of Novaya Gazeta , and from other actions that in the current circumstances could deprive Novaya Gazeta of the enjoyment of its rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention”. 2.     OOO Telekanal Dozhd and Ms Sindeyeva (a)     On 1 and 9 March 2022 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia sent to Roskomnadzor two “demands” under section 15.3 of the Information Act to restrict access to the Dozhd website ( www.tvrain.ru ) because of “false information regarding the nature of the special military operation”. (b)     On 3 March 2022 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia sent to the applicants two “warnings” regarding materials on the Dozhd Youtube channel containing “calls to extremist and terrorist activities”. The applicants brought administrative proceedings challenging the “demands” and “warnings” but to no avail. 1 .     Novaya Gazeta and Mr Muratov (a)     four sets of administrative claims challenging the “demands” brought by the applicants rejected by a first-instance court, appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court. (b)     06/07/2022, 10/08/2022, 14/09/2022, Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow: the defendants found guilty under Art. 13.15 § 9 of the CAO in the first instance and sentenced to fines in three sets of proceedings. Appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court. (c)     13/09/2022, 18/01/2023, Tverskoy District Court: the applicant company found guilty of an administrative offence on two counts. Appeal proceedings will be launched as soon as the applicants are served with the texts of the two judgments in their entirety. (d)     15/12/2022, Tverskoy District Court: the Prosecutor General’s Office’s “demand” declared lawful. Appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court. (e)     05/09/2022, 06/09/2022, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow: administrative claims by Roskomnadzor granted, licences revoked. 07/02/2023, Moscow City Court: the judgments of 05/09/2022 and 06/09/2022 upheld on appeal. 2.     OOO Telekanal Dozhd and Ms Sindeyeva (a)     23/05/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: the applicants’ claims dismissed in full. 09/02/2023, Moscow City Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal. 18/07/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: the applicants’ claims dismissed in full. Appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court. (b)     04/08/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: the applicants’ claims dismissed in full as the authorities’ actions were based on section 11 of the Extremism Act. Appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court. 11. 28925/22+ Badanin and Others In 2017 Mr Badanin, Ms Zholobova and Mr Rubin, then journalists at TV Rain ( Dozhd ) ( www.tvrain.tv ), filmed a documentary alleging close ties between President Putin and Mr T., a criminal, which TV Rain broadcast. On 14/11/2017 a criminal investigation was opened against the three applicants under Art. 128.1 § 5 of the Criminal Code (aggravated libel). On 29/09/2020 the criminal case was closed owing to the statute of limitations. On 28/06/2021 the investigation was resumed. On 29/06/2021 an investigator drew up orders to urgently search the flats of Mr   Badanin and Ms Zholobova, as well as two flats belonging to Mr Rubin. No judicial authorisation was sought on account of emergency. On the same date all four flats were searched, and the applicants’ documents, laptops, smartphones, USB and hard drives seized. 1.     Mr Badanin (i)   01/07/2021, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg: the investigator’s order to search the applicant’s flat declared lawful, Mr   Badanin’s complaint dismissed (quashed on appeal on 08/09/2021); 04/10/2021, St Petersburg City Court: the investigator’s order declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed. (ii)   14/12/2021, St Petersburg City Court: the decision of 04/10/2021 upheld. 2.     Ms Zholobova (i)   01/07/2021, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg: the investigator’s order to search Ms   Zholobova’s flat declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed (quashed on appeal on 01/09/2021); 27/09/2021, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg: the investigator’s order declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed. (ii)   14/12/2021, St Petersburg City Court: the decision of 27/09/2021 upheld.   3.     Mr Rubin (i)   01/07/2021, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, two decisions: the investigator’s orders to search Mr   Rubin’s two flats declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed (quashed on appeal on 27/08/2021 and 31/08/2021); 20/09/2021, St Petersburg City Court, two decisions: the investigator’s orders regarding the searches of two flats declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed. (ii)   08/12/2021 and 14/12/2021, St   Petersburg City Court: the two decisions of 20/09/2021 upheld. 12. 53150/22 Azar v. Russia On 28/02/2022 Mr Azar published on his Facebook page a statement that read, in particular, as follows: “The residential areas of Kharkiv were bombed today either by Grads [self ‑ propelled 122 mm multiple rocket launchers employed by the Russian military] or by something else, civilians have died. This madness must be stopped. ...” On 07/04/2022 a prosecutor’s office drew up an administrative-offence report under Art. 20.3.3 § 2 of the CAO (“public actions aimed at discrediting the Russian army”) in respect of Mr Azar. The domestic courts found Mr Azar guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine. (i)   10/06/2022, the Khamovnicheskiy District Court: a fine of RUB   60,000 (ii)   14/07/2022, Moscow City Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal.