CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2025

.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 } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 28 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no.   25500/20 Murat Osmanovich DASKIYEV against Russia and 12 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 3 July 2025, 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 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 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 Avagyan v. Russia , no. 36911/20, 29 April 2025 and Kobaliya and   Others v. Russia , nos. 39446/16 and 106   others, 22   October 2024).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS 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 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     25500/20 24/06/2020 Murat Osmanovich DASKIYEV 1949     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his video criticising the regional authorities’ plans to waive claims on the Prigorodnyy District in favour of the Republic of North Ossetia. 24/09/2019, Magasskiy District Court of the Republic of Ingushetia Fine of RUB 15,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 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.     45234/20 29/09/2020 Yekaterina Olegovna BILBAO 1973   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in her social media post about insufficient medicine to treat COVID-19 at Lipetsk regional infectious diseases hospital, where she sought to collect funds for purchasing basic medicine, relying on information published on the local administration’s official website. 06/07/2020, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Lipetsk Fine of RUB 30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 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.     6737/21 23/12/2020 Mikhail Nikolayevich MATVEYEV 1968   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his Twitter post concerning medical negligence regarding two residents of Novokuibyshevsk infected with COVID-19 after their trip abroad. 25/06/2020, Samara Regional Court Fine of RUB 45,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 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.     9640/21 25/01/2021 Natalya Andreyevna PAVLOVA 1972   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in her article concerning cemetery arrangements for burying the COVID-19 victims in Ufa. 12/11/2020, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ufa Fine of RUB 30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 29 April 2025       11392/21 04/02/2021 Vladimir Leonidovich MALTSEV 1981   Yekaterina Viktorovna Abashina Moscow The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his social media comment expressing doubts concerning the credibility of COVID-19 statistics in the Perm Region and stating that he knew of at least four death cases.   05/08/2020, Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Perm Fine of RUB 15,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 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.     13338/21 18/02/2021 Tatyana Mikhaylovna ZNAK 1962   Roman Yevgenyevich Kachanov Yekaterinburg The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in her Facebook comment about a shortage of hospital beds due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 19/08/2020, Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg Fine of RUB 15,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 29 April 2025       13787/21 10/02/2021 Aelita Yevgenyevna YEROKHINA 1982   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in her VKontakte post containing four photographs with comments relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. 15/09/2020, Perm Regional Court 300 hours of forced labour Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 29 April 2025       24669/21 16/04/2021 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich CHERNOV 1979   Yekaterina Mikhaylovna Shmygina Voronezh The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his article analysing COVID-19 statistics in Russia, which allegedly contradicted official statistics on the matter. 19/10/2020, Sovetskiy District Court of Bryansk Fine of RUB 30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 29 April 2025       31983/21 02/06/2021 Albert Nailevich KHALIMOV 1988   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his VKontakte repost concerning the Russian COVID-19 vaccine. 15/03/2021, Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Perm Region Fine of RUB 30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 29 April 2025     50526/21 29/09/2021 Vyacheslav Valeryevich YEGOROV 1977   Mariya Olegovna Eysmont Moscow The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his Facebook and Telegram posts suggesting that many residents of Kolomna had already recovered from COVID-19, based on publicly available data and presented as a version. 31/03/2021, Kolomna Town Court of the Moscow Region Fine of RUB 30,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 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.   29580/22 28/05/2022 Dmitriy Petrovich KONOPLEV 1962   Danil Yuryevich Vasin Orel The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in his Telegram group post concerning the alleged consequences for reproductive health of COVID-19 vaccination. 28/01/2022, Pervomayskiy District Court of Novosibirsk Fine of RUB 15,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 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.   49404/22 05/10/2022 Lyudmila Ivanovna LEONTYEVA 1944   Andrey Vasilyevich Sabinin Stavropol The applicant was found guilty under Article   13.15(9) of the CAO for disseminating allegedly untrue information in publications concerning attempts to bankrupt an agricultural co-operative. 10/08/2022, Stavropol Regional Court Fine of RUB 150,000 Failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference; excessive sanction Avagyan v. Russia, no. 36911/20, §§   30 ‑ 39, 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.   9746/25 18/03/2025 Kirill Vladimirovich FEDOROV 1992   Anna Yevgenyevna Bochilo Barnaul The applicant is a gender psychologist and an LGBT rights activist. On 02/9/2022 the Ministry of Justice designated the applicant as a “foreign agent”. The applicant’s challenge to this designation was unsuccessful. 23/01/2025, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Designation as a foreign agent Foreign-agent designation is arbitrary and not necessary in a democratic society Kobaliya and Others v. Russia, nos. 39446/16 and 106   others, 22   October 2024 Art. 8 (1) - Private life – interference with the private life as a result of his criminal conviction and designation as a foreign agent;   Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with the complaint under Art. 8 above.