CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 novembre 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 245 November 2020 Avagyan v. Russia (communicated case) - 36911/20   Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction and fine of private individual for online comment on social media alleging non-existence of COVID-19 in the region: communicated In May 2020, the applicant posted an online comment on Instagram (a photo and video sharing social networking service), alleging inter alia that there had been no real cases of COVID-19 in the Krasnodar Region of Russia. She was subsequently convicted for disseminating untrue information on the Internet, and sentenced to a fine of 30,000 Russian roubles (approximately 390 euros), against which she appealed unsuccessfully. The applicant complains to the Court that the law in question failed to distinguish between dissemination of untrue information and sharing value judgments, that her opinion was based on other Internet publications and posed no risk to public health or security, and that the amount of fine was excessive. She also complains that, in the absence of a prosecutor, the trial court assumed the role of the prosecution. Communicated under Articles 6 § 1 and 10.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes