I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in ZUBEL v. POLAND.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-07-10
- Communication date: 2020-03-24
- Application number(s): 10932/18
- Country: POL
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 5-3
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Violation of Article 13+10-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general}
Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.628691
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Damian Zubel, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Koszalin.
He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Kucznier, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 April 2015 the applicant was arrested by the police, on suspicion of setting fire to a house belonging to his partner’s parents.
It was alleged that, the day before, after consuming a large quantity of alcohol, the applicant had argued with his girlfriend, with whom he lived at the time.
He had become agitated because she had refused to sleep in the same room with him.
He had threatened his girlfriend and her parents, saying that they would regret that moment.
His girlfriend’s mother had allegedly encouraged her daughter to sleep with the applicant in order to end the argument.
After that, the applicant had allegedly ignited the bedsheets with an unknown substance, had jumped out of the window and had gone to his neighbour’s house to continue drinking.
Upon entering his neighbour’s house he had immediately said what he had just done and the neighbour had alerted the family about the fire, which was extinguished by firemen.
The applicant had been apprehended on site and was subsequently charged with arson and attempted murder.
The case was joined with an investigation into the applicant driving a car under the influence of alcohol two months earlier.
On 14 April 2015 the Koszalin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) placed the applicant in detention on remand for three months.
The court reasoned that there was a high suspicion of the applicant’s guilt and, in the light of a potentially lengthy prison sentence being imposed, it was possible that the applicant might attempt to obstruct proceedings.
The detention on remand had subsequently been extended every three months by the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
On 10 February 2016 the court dismissed an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.
When extending the detention on remand, the court relied on the fact that the applicant was in a relationship with one of the victims, knew her family and thus could have attempted to influence their testimonies had he been set free.
Moreover, the court referred to the fact that the applicant had failed to appear for questioning in the case concerning him driving under the influence of alcohol, which further substantiated the risk of obstruction of justice.
The bill of indictment was lodged by the Koszalin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) on 21 March 2016 with the Koszalin Regional Court.
The applicant was charged with arson and attempted murder.
The bill of indictment also contained charges of an assault on a public official (police officer), obstruction of an official activity and criminal threats.
The latter charges were apparently heard in a separate set of proceedings, whose outcome is unknown.
The first hearing took place on 31 August 2016.
On 18 October 2016 the applicant was convicted of arson and attempted murder and sentenced to twelve years in prison.
On 10 January 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention on remand for another three months.
On 2 February 2017 it dismissed an interlocutory appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.
On 8 March 2017 the same court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
It found that the identified shortcomings amounted to a gross procedural injustice.
In particular, it relied on the fact that the court‐appointed fire marshal (biegły z zakresu pożarnictwa) had a conflict of interest and there were serious doubts as to his impartiality.
It also found that there was no evidence to prove that the applicant had intended to kill anyone.
For these reasons, the appellate court ordered that the entire proceedings be repeated.
On 10 March 2017 the applicant’s lawyer requested the detention on remand be lifted.
Her request was dismissed and as the court had found that the proceedings had to be repeated in their entirety there was an increased risk of obstruction of justice.
Finally, on 22 November 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court conditionally extended the detention on remand for another three months, unless the applicant paid 30,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), (7,500 euros (EUR)).
The applicant complied and was released on 27 November 2017.
He was ordered to report regularly to a police station and was prohibited from approaching and/or contacting the victims.
On 25 July 2019 he was convicted of destruction of property and sentenced to three years in prison, with the period of his detention on remand (two years, seven months and fourteen days) being considered as time served.
He was also ordered to pay PLN 44,000 (EUR 11,000) in pecuniary compensation to his victims.
His lawyer appealed against that judgment on 19 August 2019, and the Koszalin District Prosecutor appealed the following day.
The appellate proceedings are pending before the Szczecin Court of Appeal.
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other so-called “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Gołek v. Poland (no.
31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006); Celejewski v. Poland (no.
17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006); and Kauczor v. Poland (no.
45219/06, § 25-33, 3 February 2009).
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand, which lasted for two years, two months and twenty-four days (excluding the period following the applicant’s initial conviction).
Judgment
THIRD SECTIONCASE OF STOMAKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 5804/15 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 July 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stomakhin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. The applicant company in application no. 48932/19, also raised a complaint under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8. The Court has previously stated that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to Article 10 § 2, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society” (see, among the recent authorities, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015; Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 87, ECHR 2015; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016). Moreover, the Court reiterates the general principles concerning various issues under Article 10 established in its case law, in particular, as to hate speech and extremist activities (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, §§ 90-101, 3 October 2017, and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 92, 96 and 113, 9 May 2018), blocking of websites (see Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33 and 37, 23 June 2020, and OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, § 28, 23 June 2020), and disrespect for the authorities and State officials (see Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, §§ 17-19, 18 January 2022). 9. In the above leading cases the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases (see Dmitriyevskiy, cited above, § 119; OOO Flavus and Others, cited above, § 45; and Karuyev, cited above, § 26). 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. The Court considers that in the instant case the Russian authorities had failed to carry out a Convention-compliant balancing exercise in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case‐law and to apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 12. The applicant company in application no. 48932/19 submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Vladimir Kharitonov, cited above, § 56, as regards the lack of remedy to complain about blocking of a website. 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, § 300, 7 June 2022, and Matveyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 4128/18 and 4 others, § 11, 6 February 2025), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
5804/15
14/01/2015
Boris Vladimirovich STOMAKHIN
1974
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant was convicted of extremist offences after publishing an article on his personal blog. In the article, he made sarcastic remarks about terrorist attacks at a railway station and on a bus in Volgograd. He “congratulated” the government on these attacks, claimed they were its own fault, and described them as acts of vengeance by the “Caucasus Resistance.” He was subsequently convicted under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code for glorifying terrorism
Supreme Court of Russia, 23/07/2015
7 years’ imprisonment and prohibition to work as a journalist for 5 years
the courts did not carry out an independent analysis of the applicant’s statements; the authorities’ failure to demonstrate convincingly “the pressing social need” for an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression in respect of a number of the impugned statements, as well as the severity of the penalty imposed on him
Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, § 118, 9 May 2018 (glorification of terrorism)
10,000
48932/19
06/09/2019
OOO ZHIVAYA FOTOGRAFIYA
2016
Bukharin Danil Alekseyevich
Moscow
The applicant company’s poster printing website was blocked without notice after Roskomnadzor blocked a range of IP addresses belonging to its hosting provider DigitalOcean in an attempt to restrict access to Telegram messenger. Courts dismissed the company’s complaint despite its website containing no illegal content, leading to the business’s closure. Supreme Court of Russia, 14/06/2019
access blocked
no illegal content was present on the applicant company’s website - no legal basis for the blocking measure
Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 38-39, 23 June 2020 (website blocked as automatic consequence of blocking order against another website with the same IP address)
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - The remedy used was not effective (see Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, § 56, 23 June 2020)
7,500
4099/20
23/12/2019
Vladislav Yuryevich SINITSA
1989
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
In July 2019, a Twitter user asked whether it would be possible to identify police officers involved in suppressing protests in Moscow using photographs published online and take revenge on them. In response, the applicant posted the following comment: “They will look at happy family photos, check the location tags, and next thing you know, the child of a proud law enforcement officer doesn’t come home from school. Instead, a snuff video CD arrives in the mail. You ask such questions as if it is your first day in this world!” He was convicted under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of inciting hatred and enmity towards police officers and was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment by decision of 03/09/2019 of the Presnenskiy District Court, upheld on cassation appeal on 21/09/2020 by the Supreme Court of Russia. Supreme Court of Russia, 21/09/2020
5 years’ imprisonment
inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, the courts did not convincingly establish the applicant’s intention and purpose for disseminating the text, specifically incitement of others to engage in acts of hatred or enmity, particularly disproportionate punishment
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
7,500
4945/20
11/01/2020
PRIVATE NETWORKS LP
2017
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The applicant company’s VPN service website was blocked by Roskomnadzor as part of a mass blocking of IP addresses allegedly enabling access to Telegram messenger platform, which had been subject to a court order restricting specific content. Courts dismissed the company’s complaint that the blocking was unlawful, finding that providing means to access blocked content justified the measure. Supreme Court of Russia, 12/07/2019
access blocked
no illegal content was present on the applicant company’s website - no legal basis for the blocking measure
Engels v. Russia, no. 61919/16, §§ 28-30, 23 June 2020 (lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures)
7,500
11619/20
18/02/2020
Grigoriy Elektronovich VINTER
1969
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
The application concerns the insult of municipal officials, Ms G., head of Cherepovets and Cherepovets Town Duma, and Ms A., mayor of Cherepovets. In 2017-2018 the applicant made several posts concerning the local authorities’ intention to cut down the Pulovskiy Forest in Cherepovets. In particular, he stated that the local authorities were going to sell the land plot with the sanctuary forest to rich businessmen and called them fascists and scum. He said that some of the local officials had bought their posts and the mayor had not been elected by the people. The local officials had had meetings with environmental experts and had posted photos of themselves skiing in the forest but next day they had signed the law allowing to destroy it. He also referred to a manifestation organised by the local residents to save the forest and said that the authorities had told them to get lost. On 26/08/2019 the Cherepovets Town Court, by its final decision, convicted the applicant of insulting public officials and sentenced him to 280 hours of compulsory works, and awarded the victims 60,000 Russian roubles. Cherepovets Town Court, 26/08/2019
280 hours of compulsory works and award to the victims in the amount of RUB 60,000
the national courts did not carry out a proper analysis of the applicant’s statements, they did not take into account the position of the applicant, the position of the persons against whom the statements were directed, the subject matter of the publications, the wording used by the applicant; the penalty imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued
Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, 18 January 2022 (related to inadequate court’s analysis of statements alleging disrespect for the authorities/ State officials)
7,500
13442/20
29/02/2020
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MENYAYLOV
1957
Savchuk Aleksandr Mikhaylovich
Chernoye
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Article 282 of the Criminal Code for causing an injury to dignity of a social group as a result of his scripting and posting on a social network nine videos: “Why are girls in such a hurry to have sex?”, “What is the face of a woman who wants you?”, “Why do girls talk on the phone in negligee?”, “Why is a stupid woman considered sexually preferable?”, “Prostitutes of the 74th Company”, “What do Hitler’s mother and Poroshenko have in common?”, “The roots of Krupskaya’s fierce hatred of Stalin and heroes in general”, “Ahnenerbe vs. NKVD or the nuances of ramming” and “Why is it easier for oligophrenic teachers to gain power?”, in which the applicant, using a video sequence from a well-known film or TV series, identified a problem from one or another sphere of social life and exposed deceptions or misconceptions that caused difficulties in relationships in a family, between spouses, parents and children, and in the society as a whole. Among other things, he critically reflected on the behaviour of women and men in certain life situations and analysed the preconditions for such behaviour. Criminal proceedings were later terminated due to the amendment of the law, however, the court stated that the applicant’s guilt had been proven. Tula Regional Court, 30/08/2019
none, despite the fact that proceedings were discontinued, the courts stated that the applicant was guilty
inadequate reasoning of the courts, no detailed assessment of statements or citations
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
7,500
41853/23
12/11/2023
Ivan Yuryevich PAVLOV
1971
Shmygina Yekaterina Mikhaylovna
Voronezh
On 16/07/2021 access to the applicant’s entire website was restricted pursuant to a take-down request from the Prosecutor General’s office on the grounds that the website republished materials from an “undesirable organisation”. The request did not indicate the offending materials or their URL addresses. Supreme Court of Russia, 13/07/2023
access to the website blocked
excessive scope of the blocking measures
OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, 23 June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)
7,500
17835/24
20/06/2024
OOO NOVYYE VREMENA
2013
Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich
Moscow
On 26/02/2022 the Russian authorities requested the applicant media organisation to remove three war reports from its website. Despite the applicant’s compliance with this request, access to the entire website newtimes.ru was subsequently blocked. Supreme Court of Russia, 20/02/2024
access to the website blocked
excessive scope of the blocking measures
OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, 23 June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)
7,500
24650/24
10/08/2024
OOO MEMO
2007
Pupykin Vyacheslav Ivanovich
Talovaya
On 16/03/2022 access to the website of the online media Kavkazskiy Uzel, of which the applicant company was the publisher, was blocked. On 19/04/2022 the telecommunications regulator upheld the blocking measure, claiming that the media had published untrue information about Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. A judicial appeal was unsuccessful. Supreme Court of Russia, 15/04/2024
access to the website blocked
wholesale blocking measures affecting entire websites are disproportionate
Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33-47, 23 June 2020, Engels v. Russia, no. 61919/16, §§ 24-35, 23 June 2020 (lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures)
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF STOMAKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 5804/15 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 July 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stomakhin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. The applicant company in application no. 48932/19, also raised a complaint under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‐73, 17 January 2023). 7. The applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8. The Court has previously stated that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to Article 10 § 2, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society” (see, among the recent authorities, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015; Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 87, ECHR 2015; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016). Moreover, the Court reiterates the general principles concerning various issues under Article 10 established in its case law, in particular, as to hate speech and extremist activities (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, §§ 90-101, 3 October 2017, and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 92, 96 and 113, 9 May 2018), blocking of websites (see Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33 and 37, 23 June 2020, and OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, § 28, 23 June 2020), and disrespect for the authorities and State officials (see Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, §§ 17-19, 18 January 2022). 9. In the above leading cases the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases (see Dmitriyevskiy, cited above, § 119; OOO Flavus and Others, cited above, § 45; and Karuyev, cited above, § 26). 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. The Court considers that in the instant case the Russian authorities had failed to carry out a Convention-compliant balancing exercise in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case‐law and to apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 12. The applicant company in application no. 48932/19 submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Vladimir Kharitonov, cited above, § 56, as regards the lack of remedy to complain about blocking of a website. 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, § 300, 7 June 2022, and Matveyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 4128/18 and 4 others, § 11, 6 February 2025), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
5804/15
14/01/2015
Boris Vladimirovich STOMAKHIN
1974
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant was convicted of extremist offences after publishing an article on his personal blog. In the article, he made sarcastic remarks about terrorist attacks at a railway station and on a bus in Volgograd. He “congratulated” the government on these attacks, claimed they were its own fault, and described them as acts of vengeance by the “Caucasus Resistance.” He was subsequently convicted under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code for glorifying terrorism
Supreme Court of Russia, 23/07/2015
7 years’ imprisonment and prohibition to work as a journalist for 5 years
the courts did not carry out an independent analysis of the applicant’s statements; the authorities’ failure to demonstrate convincingly “the pressing social need” for an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression in respect of a number of the impugned statements, as well as the severity of the penalty imposed on him
Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, § 118, 9 May 2018 (glorification of terrorism)
10,000
48932/19
06/09/2019
OOO ZHIVAYA FOTOGRAFIYA
2016
Bukharin Danil Alekseyevich
Moscow
The applicant company’s poster printing website was blocked without notice after Roskomnadzor blocked a range of IP addresses belonging to its hosting provider DigitalOcean in an attempt to restrict access to Telegram messenger. Courts dismissed the company’s complaint despite its website containing no illegal content, leading to the business’s closure. Supreme Court of Russia, 14/06/2019
access blocked
no illegal content was present on the applicant company’s website - no legal basis for the blocking measure
Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 38-39, 23 June 2020 (website blocked as automatic consequence of blocking order against another website with the same IP address)
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - The remedy used was not effective (see Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, § 56, 23 June 2020)
7,500
4099/20
23/12/2019
Vladislav Yuryevich SINITSA
1989
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
In July 2019, a Twitter user asked whether it would be possible to identify police officers involved in suppressing protests in Moscow using photographs published online and take revenge on them. In response, the applicant posted the following comment: “They will look at happy family photos, check the location tags, and next thing you know, the child of a proud law enforcement officer doesn’t come home from school. Instead, a snuff video CD arrives in the mail. You ask such questions as if it is your first day in this world!” He was convicted under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of inciting hatred and enmity towards police officers and was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment by decision of 03/09/2019 of the Presnenskiy District Court, upheld on cassation appeal on 21/09/2020 by the Supreme Court of Russia. Supreme Court of Russia, 21/09/2020
5 years’ imprisonment
inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, the courts did not convincingly establish the applicant’s intention and purpose for disseminating the text, specifically incitement of others to engage in acts of hatred or enmity, particularly disproportionate punishment
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
7,500
4945/20
11/01/2020
PRIVATE NETWORKS LP
2017
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The applicant company’s VPN service website was blocked by Roskomnadzor as part of a mass blocking of IP addresses allegedly enabling access to Telegram messenger platform, which had been subject to a court order restricting specific content. Courts dismissed the company’s complaint that the blocking was unlawful, finding that providing means to access blocked content justified the measure. Supreme Court of Russia, 12/07/2019
access blocked
no illegal content was present on the applicant company’s website - no legal basis for the blocking measure
Engels v. Russia, no. 61919/16, §§ 28-30, 23 June 2020 (lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures)
7,500
11619/20
18/02/2020
Grigoriy Elektronovich VINTER
1969
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
The application concerns the insult of municipal officials, Ms G., head of Cherepovets and Cherepovets Town Duma, and Ms A., mayor of Cherepovets. In 2017-2018 the applicant made several posts concerning the local authorities’ intention to cut down the Pulovskiy Forest in Cherepovets. In particular, he stated that the local authorities were going to sell the land plot with the sanctuary forest to rich businessmen and called them fascists and scum. He said that some of the local officials had bought their posts and the mayor had not been elected by the people. The local officials had had meetings with environmental experts and had posted photos of themselves skiing in the forest but next day they had signed the law allowing to destroy it. He also referred to a manifestation organised by the local residents to save the forest and said that the authorities had told them to get lost. On 26/08/2019 the Cherepovets Town Court, by its final decision, convicted the applicant of insulting public officials and sentenced him to 280 hours of compulsory works, and awarded the victims 60,000 Russian roubles. Cherepovets Town Court, 26/08/2019
280 hours of compulsory works and award to the victims in the amount of RUB 60,000
the national courts did not carry out a proper analysis of the applicant’s statements, they did not take into account the position of the applicant, the position of the persons against whom the statements were directed, the subject matter of the publications, the wording used by the applicant; the penalty imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued
Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, 18 January 2022 (related to inadequate court’s analysis of statements alleging disrespect for the authorities/ State officials)
7,500
13442/20
29/02/2020
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MENYAYLOV
1957
Savchuk Aleksandr Mikhaylovich
Chernoye
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Article 282 of the Criminal Code for causing an injury to dignity of a social group as a result of his scripting and posting on a social network nine videos: “Why are girls in such a hurry to have sex?”, “What is the face of a woman who wants you?”, “Why do girls talk on the phone in negligee?”, “Why is a stupid woman considered sexually preferable?”, “Prostitutes of the 74th Company”, “What do Hitler’s mother and Poroshenko have in common?”, “The roots of Krupskaya’s fierce hatred of Stalin and heroes in general”, “Ahnenerbe vs. NKVD or the nuances of ramming” and “Why is it easier for oligophrenic teachers to gain power?”, in which the applicant, using a video sequence from a well-known film or TV series, identified a problem from one or another sphere of social life and exposed deceptions or misconceptions that caused difficulties in relationships in a family, between spouses, parents and children, and in the society as a whole. Among other things, he critically reflected on the behaviour of women and men in certain life situations and analysed the preconditions for such behaviour. Criminal proceedings were later terminated due to the amendment of the law, however, the court stated that the applicant’s guilt had been proven. Tula Regional Court, 30/08/2019
none, despite the fact that proceedings were discontinued, the courts stated that the applicant was guilty
inadequate reasoning of the courts, no detailed assessment of statements or citations
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
7,500
41853/23
12/11/2023
Ivan Yuryevich PAVLOV
1971
Shmygina Yekaterina Mikhaylovna
Voronezh
On 16/07/2021 access to the applicant’s entire website was restricted pursuant to a take-down request from the Prosecutor General’s office on the grounds that the website republished materials from an “undesirable organisation”. The request did not indicate the offending materials or their URL addresses. Supreme Court of Russia, 13/07/2023
access to the website blocked
excessive scope of the blocking measures
OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, 23 June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)
7,500
17835/24
20/06/2024
OOO NOVYYE VREMENA
2013
Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich
Moscow
On 26/02/2022 the Russian authorities requested the applicant media organisation to remove three war reports from its website. Despite the applicant’s compliance with this request, access to the entire website newtimes.ru was subsequently blocked. Supreme Court of Russia, 20/02/2024
access to the website blocked
excessive scope of the blocking measures
OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, 23 June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)
7,500
24650/24
10/08/2024
OOO MEMO
2007
Pupykin Vyacheslav Ivanovich
Talovaya
On 16/03/2022 access to the website of the online media Kavkazskiy Uzel, of which the applicant company was the publisher, was blocked. On 19/04/2022 the telecommunications regulator upheld the blocking measure, claiming that the media had published untrue information about Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. A judicial appeal was unsuccessful. Supreme Court of Russia, 15/04/2024
access to the website blocked
wholesale blocking measures affecting entire websites are disproportionate
Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33-47, 23 June 2020, Engels v. Russia, no. 61919/16, §§ 24-35, 23 June 2020 (lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures)
7,500
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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
5804/15
14/01/2015
Boris Vladimirovich STOMAKHIN
1974
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant was convicted of extremist offences after publishing an article on his personal blog. In the article, he made sarcastic remarks about terrorist attacks at a railway station and on a bus in Volgograd. He “congratulated” the government on these attacks, claimed they were its own fault, and described them as acts of vengeance by the “Caucasus Resistance.” He was subsequently convicted under Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code for glorifying terrorism
Supreme Court of Russia, 23/07/2015
7 years’ imprisonment and prohibition to work as a journalist for 5 years
the courts did not carry out an independent analysis of the applicant’s statements; the authorities’ failure to demonstrate convincingly “the pressing social need” for an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression in respect of a number of the impugned statements, as well as the severity of the penalty imposed on him
Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, § 118, 9 May 2018 (glorification of terrorism)
10,000
48932/19
06/09/2019
OOO ZHIVAYA FOTOGRAFIYA
2016
Bukharin Danil Alekseyevich
Moscow
The applicant company’s poster printing website was blocked without notice after Roskomnadzor blocked a range of IP addresses belonging to its hosting provider DigitalOcean in an attempt to restrict access to Telegram messenger. Courts dismissed the company’s complaint despite its website containing no illegal content, leading to the business’s closure. Supreme Court of Russia, 14/06/2019
access blocked
no illegal content was present on the applicant company’s website - no legal basis for the blocking measure
Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 38-39, 23 June 2020 (website blocked as automatic consequence of blocking order against another website with the same IP address)
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - The remedy used was not effective (see Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, § 56, 23 June 2020)
7,500
4099/20
23/12/2019
Vladislav Yuryevich SINITSA
1989
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
In July 2019, a Twitter user asked whether it would be possible to identify police officers involved in suppressing protests in Moscow using photographs published online and take revenge on them. In response, the applicant posted the following comment: “They will look at happy family photos, check the location tags, and next thing you know, the child of a proud law enforcement officer doesn’t come home from school. Instead, a snuff video CD arrives in the mail. You ask such questions as if it is your first day in this world!” He was convicted under Article 282 of the Criminal Code of inciting hatred and enmity towards police officers and was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment by decision of 03/09/2019 of the Presnenskiy District Court, upheld on cassation appeal on 21/09/2020 by the Supreme Court of Russia. Supreme Court of Russia, 21/09/2020
5 years’ imprisonment
inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, the courts did not convincingly establish the applicant’s intention and purpose for disseminating the text, specifically incitement of others to engage in acts of hatred or enmity, particularly disproportionate punishment
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
7,500
4945/20
11/01/2020
PRIVATE NETWORKS LP
2017
Darbinyan Sarkis Simonovich
Moscow
The applicant company’s VPN service website was blocked by Roskomnadzor as part of a mass blocking of IP addresses allegedly enabling access to Telegram messenger platform, which had been subject to a court order restricting specific content. Courts dismissed the company’s complaint that the blocking was unlawful, finding that providing means to access blocked content justified the measure. Supreme Court of Russia, 12/07/2019
access blocked
no illegal content was present on the applicant company’s website - no legal basis for the blocking measure
Engels v. Russia, no. 61919/16, §§ 28-30, 23 June 2020 (lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures)
7,500
11619/20
18/02/2020
Grigoriy Elektronovich VINTER
1969
Peredruk Aleksandr Dmitriyevich
St Petersburg
The application concerns the insult of municipal officials, Ms G., head of Cherepovets and Cherepovets Town Duma, and Ms A., mayor of Cherepovets. In 2017-2018 the applicant made several posts concerning the local authorities’ intention to cut down the Pulovskiy Forest in Cherepovets. In particular, he stated that the local authorities were going to sell the land plot with the sanctuary forest to rich businessmen and called them fascists and scum. He said that some of the local officials had bought their posts and the mayor had not been elected by the people. The local officials had had meetings with environmental experts and had posted photos of themselves skiing in the forest but next day they had signed the law allowing to destroy it. He also referred to a manifestation organised by the local residents to save the forest and said that the authorities had told them to get lost. On 26/08/2019 the Cherepovets Town Court, by its final decision, convicted the applicant of insulting public officials and sentenced him to 280 hours of compulsory works, and awarded the victims 60,000 Russian roubles. Cherepovets Town Court, 26/08/2019
280 hours of compulsory works and award to the victims in the amount of RUB 60,000
the national courts did not carry out a proper analysis of the applicant’s statements, they did not take into account the position of the applicant, the position of the persons against whom the statements were directed, the subject matter of the publications, the wording used by the applicant; the penalty imposed on the applicant was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued
Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, 18 January 2022 (related to inadequate court’s analysis of statements alleging disrespect for the authorities/ State officials)
7,500
13442/20
29/02/2020
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MENYAYLOV
1957
Savchuk Aleksandr Mikhaylovich
Chernoye
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Article 282 of the Criminal Code for causing an injury to dignity of a social group as a result of his scripting and posting on a social network nine videos: “Why are girls in such a hurry to have sex?”, “What is the face of a woman who wants you?”, “Why do girls talk on the phone in negligee?”, “Why is a stupid woman considered sexually preferable?”, “Prostitutes of the 74th Company”, “What do Hitler’s mother and Poroshenko have in common?”, “The roots of Krupskaya’s fierce hatred of Stalin and heroes in general”, “Ahnenerbe vs. NKVD or the nuances of ramming” and “Why is it easier for oligophrenic teachers to gain power?”, in which the applicant, using a video sequence from a well-known film or TV series, identified a problem from one or another sphere of social life and exposed deceptions or misconceptions that caused difficulties in relationships in a family, between spouses, parents and children, and in the society as a whole. Among other things, he critically reflected on the behaviour of women and men in certain life situations and analysed the preconditions for such behaviour. Criminal proceedings were later terminated due to the amendment of the law, however, the court stated that the applicant’s guilt had been proven. Tula Regional Court, 30/08/2019
none, despite the fact that proceedings were discontinued, the courts stated that the applicant was guilty
inadequate reasoning of the courts, no detailed assessment of statements or citations
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
7,500
41853/23
12/11/2023
Ivan Yuryevich PAVLOV
1971
Shmygina Yekaterina Mikhaylovna
Voronezh
On 16/07/2021 access to the applicant’s entire website was restricted pursuant to a take-down request from the Prosecutor General’s office on the grounds that the website republished materials from an “undesirable organisation”. The request did not indicate the offending materials or their URL addresses. Supreme Court of Russia, 13/07/2023
access to the website blocked
excessive scope of the blocking measures
OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, 23 June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)
7,500
17835/24
20/06/2024
OOO NOVYYE VREMENA
2013
Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich
Moscow
On 26/02/2022 the Russian authorities requested the applicant media organisation to remove three war reports from its website. Despite the applicant’s compliance with this request, access to the entire website newtimes.ru was subsequently blocked. Supreme Court of Russia, 20/02/2024
access to the website blocked
excessive scope of the blocking measures
OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, 23 June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)
7,500
24650/24
10/08/2024
OOO MEMO
2007
Pupykin Vyacheslav Ivanovich
Talovaya
On 16/03/2022 access to the website of the online media Kavkazskiy Uzel, of which the applicant company was the publisher, was blocked. On 19/04/2022 the telecommunications regulator upheld the blocking measure, claiming that the media had published untrue information about Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. A judicial appeal was unsuccessful. Supreme Court of Russia, 15/04/2024
access to the website blocked
wholesale blocking measures affecting entire websites are disproportionate
Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33-47, 23 June 2020, Engels v. Russia, no. 61919/16, §§ 24-35, 23 June 2020 (lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures)
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.