CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .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 6 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no.   3198/20 Grigoriy Andreyevich KUDRYAVTSEV against Russia and 13 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 18 September 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 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 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 the Relevant case-law column in the table below). 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     3198/20* 10/12/2019 Grigoriy Andreyevich KUDRYAVTSEV 1984   Anton Sergeyevich Grachev Strasskirchen The applicant was convicted under Article   20.2 § 2 of the CAO for having set up in St Petersburg, on 3 April 2019, a makeshift tombstone bearing the inscription "PUTIN, 1952-2019, BETRAYER OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE". St Petersburg City Court, 11/06/2019 9 days’ imprisonment Imprisonment excessive for a symbolic protest action Olga Kudrina v.   Russia, no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct). Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     12661/20* 26/02/2020 Aleksey Anatolyevich KUNGUROV 1977   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article   20.3.1 of the CAO for having published on LiveJournal, on 18 January 2019, a blog post titled "Is it permissible to call the Russian people shit?" discussing Russian-speaking population’s characteristics in a coarse satirical style. While containing no calls to violence or obscene language, a forensic examination by Tyumen State University found that the article contained signs of national dignity humiliation and incitement to hatred. Tyumen Regional Court, 19/11/2019 15 days’ imprisonment Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of hate speech Dmitriyevskiy v.   Russia, no.   42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code). Art. 6 (3) (c) - own choice of legal assistance - The courts refused to adjourn the hearing to allow the applicant’s lawyer to participate,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - the applicant started serving the prison sentence immediately after the first-instance judgment had been delivered; no suspensive effect of appeal.     26041/20 25/05/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich KONONOV 1982   Aleksey Vladimirovich Bushmakov Yekaterinburg The applicant was convicted under Article   319 of the Criminal Code for having published on YouTube, on 12/06/2019, a video criticising police inaction by insulting a police officer, using the terms "coward" and "administrative impotent". Irbitskiy District Court of Sverdlovsk Region, 21/01/2020 160 hours’ community service Criminal sanction excessive for criticism of authorities without evidence of incitement to violence Karuyev v. Russia, no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities / State officials).       37097/20* 07/08/2020 Anatoliy Stepanovich GRITSENKO 1957   Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article   205.2 of the Criminal Code for having made statements interpreted as propaganda of terrorism, including a comment to Ukrainian TV channel "1+1" in 2014 proposing to destroy Russian convoys with combat equipment in response to Ukrainian armed forces losses, and a statement to portal "112 Ukraine" on   02/07/2017 that "for every such car that exploded in Kiev or Mariupol, two should explode in Taganrog or Moscow" when commenting on the explosion of a Ukrainian military intelligence commander’s vehicle. Military Court of Appeal, 15/04/2020 6 years’ imprisonment Conviction in absentia for political statements made outside Russian jurisdiction Savva Terentyev v.   Russia, no.   10692/09, 28   August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech). Art. 6 (3) (c) - own choice of legal assistance - The applicant was not informed about the institution of proceedings against him or allowed to choose his counsel,   Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses - The court refused to summon the expert in linguistics on whose findings the conviction was based to a decisive extent,   Art. 6 (3) (b) - adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence - The applicant was not informed of the charges against him or allowed to submit arguments in his defence.     51386/20* 30/10/2020 Alan Aleksandrovich DZUGAYEV 1989   Yuliya Fedotova Yekaterinburg The applicant was convicted under Article   20.2 § 2 of the CAO for having placed a coffin with the sign "Elections 2020" before the building of the election commission of Yessentuki on 24/08/2020. Stavropol Regional Court, 12/09/2020 5 days’ imprisonment Imprisonment excessive for a symbolic protest action Olga Kudrina v.   Russia, no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct). Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     53098/20 16/11/2020 Anton Igorevich NOVIKOV 1989   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article   20.1 of the CAO for having posted a comment on VKontakte in which he criticised the President of Russia using an obscene word. Smolensk Regional Court, 15/07/2020 Fine of RUB   30,000 Fine excessive for political criticism Karuyev v. Russia, no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities / State officials). Art. 6 (3) (d) - examination/attendance of witnesses -inability to cross ‑ examine witnesses against him,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     1244/21* 04/12/2020 Ilya Vyacheslavovich AREFYEV 1984   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article   20.1 § 3 of the CAO for having published a post on a social network containing a negative assessment of the President. Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 17/06/2020 Fine of RUB   30,000 Fine excessive for political criticism Karuyev v. Russia, no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities / State officials). Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.     15080/21* 13/03/2021 Sergey Ivanovich LAVROV 1991     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article   205.2 § 2 of the Criminal Code for having created several communities on VKontakte with headings criticising Vladimir Putin and posting messages supporting revolutionary activity in Russia. Military Court of Appeal, 14/09/2020 5 years’ imprisonment Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for political criticism without evidence of incitement to violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism).       20092/21* 07/04/2021 Aytakhadzhi Visarkhadzhieyevich KHALIMOV 1993     Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article   205.2 of the Criminal Code for having saved and watched videos about the war in Chechnya on his social network page, which, according to the conviction, justified the actions of Chechen separatists. Appellate Military Court, 07/10/2020 3 years and 6   months’ imprisonment Excessively broad interpretation of terrorism legislation for political content without evidence of incitement to violence Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism).     23584/21 16/04/2021 Nikolay Valeryevich SOKUROV 1992   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article   5.26 § 2 of the CAO for having published on his social network page materials related to Pastafarianism criticising the organisation of the Orthodox church, which, in the opinion of an Orthodox priest, had insulted the feelings of the adherents to the Christian religion. Surgut Town Court, 12/11/2020 Fine of RUB   30,000 Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of religious offence legislation Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§   158 ‑ 59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism). Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.   28600/21 20/05/2021 Vladimir Valentinovich SHASHKOV 1965   Alan Olegovich Gamazov Moscow The applicant was convicted under Article   20.2 § 2 of the CAO for having posted on Odnoklassniki, on 18/04/2021, a link to Navalnyy’s twitter account announcing that a protest in his support would be held on 21 April. Moscow City Court, 27/04/2021 7 days’ imprisonment Imprisonment excessive for sharing information about peaceful assembly Elvira Dmitriyeva v.   Russia, nos.   60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019 (conviction for calls to participate in public events). Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings,   Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - Sentence executed before the appeal was heard.   38244/21 14/07/2021 Vladislav Yuryevich SHULGA 1981   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article   20.3.1 of the CAO for having commented on a VK publication criticising prosecutors, police officers and judges, calling them criminals, dregs and swindlers. Arkhangelsk Regional Court, 30/03/2021 Fine of RUB   10,000 Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of hate speech Dmitriyevskiy v.   Russia, no.   42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code).     47068/21* 09/09/2021 Ramay Zagidullovich YULDASHEV 1970   Vladimir Yuryevich Protasov Yoshkar-Ola The applicant was convicted under Article   20.3.1 of the CAO for having posted on VKontakte content concerning the relations between two ethnic groups (Bashkirs and Tatars). Supreme Court of the Mari El Republic, 10/03/2021 Fine of RUB   10,000 Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of hate speech Dmitriyevskiy v.   Russia, no.   42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code).     57820/21 13/11/2021 Darya Aleksandrovna BELYAYEVA 1991   Irina Vladimirovna Khrunova Kazan The applicant was convicted under Article   20.1 § 3 of the CAO for having posted a critical comment on her Facebook page regarding court proceedings concerning the construction of a church, where public access was denied due to COVID-19 restrictions. Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 16/06/2021 Fine of RUB   30,000 Fine excessive for political criticism Karuyev v. Russia, no.   4161/13, 18   January 2022 (disrespect for the authorities / State officials). Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings.