CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 December 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no.   12289/20 Aleksandr Yuryevich KOMAROV against Russia and 1 other application (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 20 November 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/registration   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     12289/20* 15/02/2020 Aleksandr Yuryevich KOMAROV 1961   Andzhelika Viktorovna Chernyavskaya Oktyabrskiy The applicant was convicted under Article   212 of the Criminal Code of attempted participation in mass disorders. 15/08/2019, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 3 years’ imprisonment The lengthy period of pre ‑ trial detention (over one year) and the long prison sentence imposed were not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (demands of public order). Olga Kudrina v. Russia , no.   34313/06, 6   April 2021 (excessive prison sentence for peaceful expressive conduct). Art. 11 (1) - Freedom of peaceful assembly – related to the same facts and charges.     602/24* 05/12/2023   OOO KULTURNYYE PROYEKTY 2022   Anastasiya Ivanovna Tyunyayeva Korolev The applicant company is the organiser of an annual Side by Side International LGBT film festival in Russia. On 25   May 2019 the screening of the films was interrupted after the police received telephone calls about a bomb planted on the premises. The applicant company asked the police to investigate the false bomb threat. The police opened a criminal case which was first suspended as the perpetrator could not be identified and then discontinued as time barred. 16 October 2023, the Investigative Committee of the Tverskoy District of Moscow   The failure by the State to discharge its obligations under Article 10 of the Convention by securing the safe and uninterrupted conduct of the international LGBT film festival organised by the applicant company Side by Side International Film Festival and Others v.   Russia , nos. 32678/18 and 2   others, §§ 13-21, 17   December 2024 Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination - Alleged homophobic motives behind the authorities’ failure to effectively investigate the false bomb threat;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - Alleged lack of remedies against the interruption of the festival due to the false bomb threat;   Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination - On 16 December 2021 the Ministry of Culture refused the applicant’s request to have its LGBT film festival included in the list of approved film festivals for year 2022, relying on the law prohibiting promotion of homosexuality among minors. The film festival had been before included in that list in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Inclusion in the list granted an exemption from obtaining film reproduction licences for the films screened during the festival. The applicant’s judicial review complaint was rejected, as the courts found that it had previously promoted homosexuality among minors (final decision of 7   August 2023 by the Supreme Court) (see Bayev and Others v. Russia , nos.   67667/09 and 2 others, §§ 90-92, 20 June 2017);   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - Complaint about the refusal of the applicant’s request to have its LGBT film festival included in the list of approved film festivals for year 2022 (see Klimova and Others v. Russia , nos. 33421/16 and 6 others, 4 February 2025).