CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 12 November 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   16041/19 Yelena Yuryevna LOBACHEVA against Russia and 6 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 17 October 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 10 §1 of the Convention relating to various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia , nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, 7   June 2022, and Olga Kudrina v. Russia , no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Applicationы raising complaints under Article 10 §1 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     16041/19* 06/03/2019 Yelena Yuryevna LOBACHEVA 1965   Dmitriy Ivanovich Dzhulay Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article 282 of the Criminal Code for distribution of leaflets (1)   addressed to servicemen criticising Mr Putin as a commander-in-chief and (2)   addressed to the Russian population and calling for Mr   Putin’s impeachment 02/10/2018, Moscow City Court Fine of RUB   100,000 The applicant’s criminal conviction was based excessively on wide interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)       17254/19* 18/03/2019 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich LESOVOY 1966   Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg The applicant was convicted under Article 280 of the Criminal Code for making calls to civil unrest in text messengers on Internet 02/10/2018, Kurgan Regional Court Two years’ prison sentence Excessively wide interpretation of extremism in the absence of indication of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)       24655/20* 27/05/2020 Radislav Rafailovich   FEDOROV 1983   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan In 2017 and 2019 the applicant posted two videos on his page in a social network. The first one concerned the investigation into D.   Medvedev’s assets and the second one was about a shooting in a high school. The domestic courts considered, based on the forensic experts’ findings, that the videos amounted to extremist materials and found the applicant guilty of having incited hate and animosity and having degraded human dignity (Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences)   29/01/2020, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan Fine of RUB 10,000 Excessively wide interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)       22621/21 02/04/2021 Sergey Valeryevich TSARKOV 1989   Yekaterina Viktorovna Abashina Moscow On 11 occasions the applicant was convicted under Article   20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offences (massive distribution of extremist materials) for publication of photos of the Azov (Ukrainian) Military Unit and its logos on his page in VKontakte social network in 2015 02/10/2020, Moscow City Court (6 separate decisions);   06/10/2020, Moscow City Court (5 separate decisions)   11 administrative fines of RUB   1,000 each Excessively wide definition of extremism in the absence of indication of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)       1833/22* 29/12/2021 Ayrat Akhnafovich DILMUKHAMETOV 1966     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted under Articles 280.1, 282.3, 280 and 205.2 of the Criminal Code for public calls for (1)   Bashkortostan’s exit from the Russian Federation, (2)   armed coup d’état, (3)   violence in respect of ethnic Chechens, and for raising funds for those activities 29/06/2021, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 9 years’ imprisonment Excessively broad definition of extremism in the absence of indications of violence; excessive severity of the sentence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), Olga Kudrina v.   Russia, no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct)       14349/22* 28/02/2022 Aleksey Aleksandrovich SEREGIN 1985   Vladimir Yuryevich Protasov Yoshkar-Ola The applicant was convicted under Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences for having reposted on his personal page in VKontakte social network a news item which contained a symbol of an organisation earlier added to the extremist list 03/09/2021, Supreme Court of the Mariy El Republic Fine of RUB 1,500 Excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)       37597/22* 20/07/2022 Sergey Fedorovich STROGONOV 1986   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offence for posting a song on his page in VKontakte social network which had been classified by the authorities as extremist materials 21/03/2022, Krasnodar Regional Court 5 days’ administrative arrest excessively broad interpretation of extremism in the absence of indications of violence 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 - lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of the administrative arrest