I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NAVALNYY AND OOO ZP v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 62670/12 and 8 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
6 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Navalnyy and OOO ZP v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 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. 3. The applicants and the Government each lodged written observations in applications nos. 62670/12, 32058/13, 1176/15, 55589/17, 56491/18, and 11884/19. In addition, in application no. 62670/12 third-party comments were received from a group of non-governmental organisations promoting freedom of expression (Media Legal Defence Initiative, Access Now, ARTICLE 19, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Law Resource Centre, and Mass Media Defence Centre), which had been given leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 7. 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). 8. Following the death of applicant Mr Navalnyy, his widow, Ms Yulia Borisovna Navalnaya, expressed her wish to pursue the applications on behalf of the deceased applicant (see the appended table). 9. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). In the present case, the applicant’s widow submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant’s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Ms Navalnaya has a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications in place of her late husband. 10. In the light of the above, the Court accepts that Ms Navalnaya has a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications in place of her deceased husband. It will therefore continue to deal with the case at her request. For convenience, however, it will continue to refer to Mr Navalnyy as the applicant in the present judgment. 11. 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. 12. The Court observes that Mr Navalnyy was a political activist, opposition leader, anti‐corruption campaigner and popular blogger. Through his social media accounts, he published material about corruption in Russia and organised protest demonstrations. His X (ex-Twitter) account had more than 2.9 million followers. He was also the founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation which carried out and published investigations into alleged corruption by Russian high-ranking government officials. By drawing attention to matters of public interest, he exercised a “public watchdog” role of similar importance to that of the press and may be characterised as a “social watchdog” warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 166-168, 8 November 2016). 13. In the leading cases cited in the appendix, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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. 14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 15. Mr Navalnyy submitted other complaints in applications nos. 55589/17 and 27119/18 which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, no. 24703/15, 7 November 2017, and Milosavljević v. Serbia (no. 2), no. 47274/19, § 65, 21 September 2021, concerning the right to reputation; and Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, §§ 56 61, 12 June 2012; Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, §§ 37-45, 2 October 2012, and Gillissen v. the Netherlands, no. 39966/09, §§ 50-56, 15 March 2016, concerning the refusal to call witnesses and admit evidence in civil proceedings. 16. The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention, in particular under Article 6 of the Convention in application no. 34902/22 and Article 18 of the Convention in applications nos. 27119/18, 56491/18, 11884/19 and 34902/22. The Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, § 156, and, as regards the complaint under Article 18 of the Convention, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.25809/17 and 14 others, § 18, 4 October 2022). 17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law, the Court finds it reasonable to award 10,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Navalnyy and EUR 7,500 to OOO ZP in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 18. The Court also considers it reasonable to award, where requested, the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage. 19. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 10,000 euros (ten thousand euros) to Mr Navalnyy in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 7,500 (seven thousand and five hundred euros) to OOO ZP in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage;
(b) that the award in respect of Mr Aleksey Anatolyevich Navalnyy should be paid to his heir, Ms Yuliya Borisovna Navalnaya;
(c) 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 6 March 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 per applicant
(in euros)[1]
62670/12
13/06/2012
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
1976
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant posted on his blog a hyperlink to a YouTube video created by former colleagues of Mr Sergey Magnitskiy, a tax lawyer who investigated a large-scale fraudulent tax refund from the federal budget. Relying on documents, including property deeds, company registration papers and flight plans, the video alleged that Ms S., the head of Moscow tax office no. 28 who had approved the refund, and her husband Mr S. had begun transferring large sums of money into offshore bank accounts and buying expensive properties in Russia and abroad within weeks of the refund having been approved. The applicant expressed his indignation in his commentary on the video. Mr S. sued the applicant for defamation. He did not deny opening offshore accounts or purchasing properties but disputed the allegation that he had used illegal money to do so. The applicant submitted to the domestic courts, among other things, a final criminal conviction dated 28 April 2009 in which a Mr M. had been found guilty of the fraudulent refund committed in conspiracy “with unidentified staff of tax office no. 28 in Moscow”. He claimed that the fact that Ms S. had been the head of that tax office and had immediately after that spent considerable amounts of money substantially exceeding her official income showed that there had been sufficient factual basis for the allegations in the video. The domestic courts allowed Mr S.’s claim, finding that the allegations that Mr S. had committed dishonest or illegal actions or crimes contained in the video and the commentary had not been corroborated with appropriate evidence, such as evidence of any criminal cases having been opened against the plaintiff in relation to the facts referred to in the video and commentary, or evidence of a court conviction finding him guilty of a criminal offence. The information about the plaintiff’s income was insufficient to prove that Mr S. had committed illegal acts. 22/12/2011, the Moscow City Court
RUB 100,000 (EUR 2,340) in respect of non pecuniary damage and an order that the applicant should post a notice of the judgment on his blog
Failure to apply Convention standards when imposing liability for a hyperlink;

lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest
Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary, no. 11257/16, § 77, 4 December 2018;

Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 35-36, 14 October 2008

2,340
32058/13
09/04/2013
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
Several days before December 2011 parliamentary elections the Russian-language Esquire magazine published an interview with the applicant. In the interview he criticised the ruling party United Russia, in particular saying that "if you have joined United Russia, you must be a thief. If you are not a thief, you are at least a crook because you use your name to cover up for other thieves and crooks" (a reference to an expression "party of crooks and thieves" referring to United Russia coined by the applicant earlier). One of the members of United Russia, a Mr S., sued the applicant for defamation. He was not named in the interview. The domestic courts found that the applicant had accused every member of the United Russia party of having committed a dishonest act, unlawful actions or having engaged in wrongful or unethical conduct. That statement was untrue because there was no evidence showing that every member of United Russia had committed a dishonest act or a crime. 10/10/2012 the Moscow City Court
RUB 30,000 (EUR 720) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and an order to post a notice of the judgment in the applicant’s blog
Failure to establish an objective link between the impugned statement and the person suing in defamation;

Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise

Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

720
1176/15
10/11/2014

and

55589/17
17/07/2017
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
The applicant was a candidate in the 2013 election for Mayor of Moscow. Less than 3 weeks before the election a blogger Mr K. published a post stating that, contrary to the requirements of electoral law, the applicant had concealed information about owing a foreign company. The applicant replied in his blog, exposing Mr K.’s allegations as fake news and referring to him as a "con man" (аферист). Mr K. sued the applicant for defamation. The domestic courts found that the applicant had not proved that Mr K. was a "con man". 14/05/2014, Moscow City Court
RUB 500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise, disproportionally high amount of fine
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-69, 8 September 2020
Art. 8 (1) - interference with the right to reputation, and inability to forge and maintain relationship with others in the professional and social sphere - A State television channel broadcasted and posted on its website videos alleging that the applicant had carried out his anticorruption activities on behalf of the United Sates and British intelligence services, who had paid him for his services, in order to undermine the Russian State. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s civil action for defamation, finding that the videos had not damaged his reputation and, moreover, some of the statements had been value judgments. Final decision: 24/03/2017, Supreme Court
-
27119/18
07/05/2018
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Vilnius
On 2 March 2017 the applicant and his team released a documentary titled “Don’t Call Him Dimon” on YouTube. The film claimed that the then Prime Minister of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, had used charities and shell companies to amass a collection of luxuries. It in particular suggested that a Russian billionaire, Mr U., had transferred the ownership of a luxurious mansion and land to a charity foundation run by Mr Medvedev’s former classmate, describing that transfer as a disguised bribe and calling for an investigation. The film relied on documents, including property deeds confirming the transfer of property from Mr U. to the charity foundation without any payment in return. The applicant then commented on the documentary in several interviews and further publications. Mr U. sued the applicant for defamation, claiming that the documentary and subsequent publications by the applicant had damaged his reputation. The applicant’s requests to call witnesses and to submit documentary evidence proving his allegations were rejected. The domestic courts ruled in favour of Mr U., finding that the applicant had published statements of facts, in particular accusations of bribery, tax fraud and pressure on journalists. Those accusations had not been corroborated with appropriate evidence, in particular evidence of a court conviction for bribery. Property deeds were no more than evidence of civil transactions for charity purposes which could not prove bribery in the absence of a criminal conviction. Nor had the applicant proved his other factual allegations against Mr U. In a separate defamation case, the charity foundation, which had allegedly received luxury assets from Mr U. on behalf of Mr Medvedev, also sued the applicant for defamation. The domestic courts ruled in favour of the foundation. The courts found that the applicant had not proved his factual allegations about the foundation’s participation in illegal and criminal activities. Property deeds confirming the transfer of property without payment were insufficient proof as they had not been declared null and void. 15/11/2017 Supreme Court; 23/04/2018 Supreme Court
First set of defamation proceedings: an order to remove from the documentary and other publications information relating to Mr U. which had been found untrue by the courts and to publish a retraction statement drafted by the courts. The applicant was subsequently fined for RUB 6,500 for the failure to comply with the judgments. Second set of defamation proceedings: an order that the applicant should post a notice of the judgment on his blog and remove sections of the documentary that concerned the charity foundation. Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest;

Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise; failure to specify which passages of the documentary and the publications it considered problematic and to examine them in detail and in context
Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 35-36 14 October 2008

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - First set of defamation proceedings: the applicant was unable to present evidence and call witnesses in support of his case as all his motions were rejected by the domestic courts, in breach of fair trial guarantees. -
56491/18
12/11/2018

and

11884/19
23/02/2019

Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

OOO ZP
2014

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Moscow

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
Mr Navalnyy posted a YouTube video “Yachts, oligarchs, and girls: a man-hunter exposes a bribe-taker” showing a deputy Russian prime-minister being lavishly entertained on the yacht of a Russian billionaire D. off the coast of Norway. The publication drew on photographs and videos published on the Instagram and YouTube accounts of an escort worker Ms V. who claimed having an affair with D. In his publication, Mr Navalnyy claimed that the deputy prime-minister’s stay on D.’s yacht – to which he had been brought in D.’s private jet – effectively amounted to a bribe from D.
OOO ZP is the founder and publisher of the online magazine Mediazona. The magazine published a summary of Mr Navalnyy’s YouTube video mentioned above. The publication included a hyperlink to the YouTube video, D.’s and deputy prime-minister’s photographs and a recorded route of D.’s yacht from an online ship tracking database. Asked for his comments, the deputy prime-minister said to the magazine that suing Mr Navalnyy in defamation would give him “too much honour” and that “other people would do it”. D. brought a civil claim against V. for the protection of his personality rights, claiming that V.’s Instagram and YouTube account featured multiple images which had been published without his consent. The domestic courts issued an interlocutory injunction requiring the Russian telecoms regulator to restrict access to D.’s images in V.’s accounts and also to Mr Navalnyy’s video on his YouTube channel and two related publications on his website, and to the Mediazona magazine’s webpage containing the above publication. The applicants learned about the proceedings after the injunction had been issued. They lodged appeals. The appellate court rejected them, holding that “a failure to take interim measures [might] render complicated or impossible the enforcement of the court’s decision”. 26/09/2018, the Supreme Court

06/11/2018, the Supreme Court
an interlocutory injunction requiring the telecoms regulator to restrict access to Mr Navalnyy’s publications on his website containing D.’s photographs and videos and to the video on his YouTube channel, as well as to the Mediazona magazine’s webpage containing the publication featuring D.’s photographs and an hyperlink to Mr Navalnyy’s YouTube video. Failure to apply Convention standards when balancing the right to private life under Article 8 and freedom of expression under Article 10: failure to take into account that the publication concerned a politician and contributed to a debate of public interest, that the photographs had been made public by V. and provided a factual basis for the allegations of bribery, failure to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the injunction
Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 90-93, 97-103, 148, ECHR 2015 (extracts)

-
29451/21
04/06/2021
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Vilnius
In July 2019, the applicant posted an article on his website regarding allegedly undisclosed wealth of Mr M., a notable figure in the “United Russia” party and a deputy of the Moscow City Duma. The publication alleged that Mr M.’s mother and teenage son owned several hotels in Austria that were not reported in his tax declaration, engaged in business activities contrary to the restrictions placed on deputies, and had not declared a considerable sum of money. He relied on documents, including property deeds, and court decisions. Mr M. sued the applicant for defamation. He did not deny the factual allegations contained in the article, but argued that the statements accusing him of being corrupt, a fraudster, a crook and a thief who had transferred stolen money abroad were defamatory. The applicant’s request to call witnesses and submit additional documents proving his allegations was rejected. The domestic courts allowed M.’s claim in part, finding that the contested statements were statements of fact which the applicant had failed to prove. 04/12/2020, the Supreme Court of Russia
an order to publish the operative part of the judgment on the applicant’s website and to remove from the article specific parts indicated by the courts. Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise);

lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, §§ 35-36 14 October 2008

-
34902/22
07/07/2022
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Mikhaylova Olga Olegovna
Moscow
In June 2020, the applicant made a public statement on Twitter and his Telegram channel about a video in support of amendments to the Russian Constitution featuring prominent citizens. The applicant commented the video as follows: “Ah, here they are, darlings. Honestly, this group of corrupt lackeys looks pretty pathetic so far. Just take a look at them—they’re a disgrace to the country. People with no conscience. Traitors.” One of the individuals in the video, World War II veteran Mr. A. lodged a criminal complaint alleging libel. The domestic courts convicted the applicant of criminal libel, finding that he had failed to prove factual allegations against Mr A., tarnishing his reputation. 17/03/2022, the Supreme Court
fine of RUB 850,000
Failure to apply Convention standards: Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise;

Manifestly disproportionate criminal conviction
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

Amorim Giestas and Jesus Costa Bordalo v. Portugal, no. 37840/10, § 36, 3 April 2014

-

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NAVALNYY AND OOO ZP v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 62670/12 and 8 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
6 March 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Navalnyy and OOO ZP v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 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. 3. The applicants and the Government each lodged written observations in applications nos. 62670/12, 32058/13, 1176/15, 55589/17, 56491/18, and 11884/19. In addition, in application no. 62670/12 third-party comments were received from a group of non-governmental organisations promoting freedom of expression (Media Legal Defence Initiative, Access Now, ARTICLE 19, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Law Resource Centre, and Mass Media Defence Centre), which had been given leave by the President of the Section to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 7. 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). 8. Following the death of applicant Mr Navalnyy, his widow, Ms Yulia Borisovna Navalnaya, expressed her wish to pursue the applications on behalf of the deceased applicant (see the appended table). 9. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). In the present case, the applicant’s widow submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant’s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Ms Navalnaya has a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications in place of her late husband. 10. In the light of the above, the Court accepts that Ms Navalnaya has a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications in place of her deceased husband. It will therefore continue to deal with the case at her request. For convenience, however, it will continue to refer to Mr Navalnyy as the applicant in the present judgment. 11. 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. 12. The Court observes that Mr Navalnyy was a political activist, opposition leader, anti‐corruption campaigner and popular blogger. Through his social media accounts, he published material about corruption in Russia and organised protest demonstrations. His X (ex-Twitter) account had more than 2.9 million followers. He was also the founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation which carried out and published investigations into alleged corruption by Russian high-ranking government officials. By drawing attention to matters of public interest, he exercised a “public watchdog” role of similar importance to that of the press and may be characterised as a “social watchdog” warranting similar protection under the Convention as that afforded to the press (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 166-168, 8 November 2016). 13. In the leading cases cited in the appendix, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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. 14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 15. Mr Navalnyy submitted other complaints in applications nos. 55589/17 and 27119/18 which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, no. 24703/15, 7 November 2017, and Milosavljević v. Serbia (no. 2), no. 47274/19, § 65, 21 September 2021, concerning the right to reputation; and Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, §§ 56 61, 12 June 2012; Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, §§ 37-45, 2 October 2012, and Gillissen v. the Netherlands, no. 39966/09, §§ 50-56, 15 March 2016, concerning the refusal to call witnesses and admit evidence in civil proceedings. 16. The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention, in particular under Article 6 of the Convention in application no. 34902/22 and Article 18 of the Convention in applications nos. 27119/18, 56491/18, 11884/19 and 34902/22. The Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, § 156, and, as regards the complaint under Article 18 of the Convention, Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.25809/17 and 14 others, § 18, 4 October 2022). 17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law, the Court finds it reasonable to award 10,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Navalnyy and EUR 7,500 to OOO ZP in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 18. The Court also considers it reasonable to award, where requested, the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage. 19. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 10,000 euros (ten thousand euros) to Mr Navalnyy in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 7,500 (seven thousand and five hundred euros) to OOO ZP in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage;
(b) that the award in respect of Mr Aleksey Anatolyevich Navalnyy should be paid to his heir, Ms Yuliya Borisovna Navalnaya;
(c) 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 6 March 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 per applicant
(in euros)[1]
62670/12
13/06/2012
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
1976
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant posted on his blog a hyperlink to a YouTube video created by former colleagues of Mr Sergey Magnitskiy, a tax lawyer who investigated a large-scale fraudulent tax refund from the federal budget. Relying on documents, including property deeds, company registration papers and flight plans, the video alleged that Ms S., the head of Moscow tax office no. 28 who had approved the refund, and her husband Mr S. had begun transferring large sums of money into offshore bank accounts and buying expensive properties in Russia and abroad within weeks of the refund having been approved. The applicant expressed his indignation in his commentary on the video. Mr S. sued the applicant for defamation. He did not deny opening offshore accounts or purchasing properties but disputed the allegation that he had used illegal money to do so. The applicant submitted to the domestic courts, among other things, a final criminal conviction dated 28 April 2009 in which a Mr M. had been found guilty of the fraudulent refund committed in conspiracy “with unidentified staff of tax office no. 28 in Moscow”. He claimed that the fact that Ms S. had been the head of that tax office and had immediately after that spent considerable amounts of money substantially exceeding her official income showed that there had been sufficient factual basis for the allegations in the video. The domestic courts allowed Mr S.’s claim, finding that the allegations that Mr S. had committed dishonest or illegal actions or crimes contained in the video and the commentary had not been corroborated with appropriate evidence, such as evidence of any criminal cases having been opened against the plaintiff in relation to the facts referred to in the video and commentary, or evidence of a court conviction finding him guilty of a criminal offence. The information about the plaintiff’s income was insufficient to prove that Mr S. had committed illegal acts. 22/12/2011, the Moscow City Court
RUB 100,000 (EUR 2,340) in respect of non pecuniary damage and an order that the applicant should post a notice of the judgment on his blog
Failure to apply Convention standards when imposing liability for a hyperlink;

lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest
Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary, no. 11257/16, § 77, 4 December 2018;

Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 35-36, 14 October 2008

2,340
32058/13
09/04/2013
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
Several days before December 2011 parliamentary elections the Russian-language Esquire magazine published an interview with the applicant. In the interview he criticised the ruling party United Russia, in particular saying that "if you have joined United Russia, you must be a thief. If you are not a thief, you are at least a crook because you use your name to cover up for other thieves and crooks" (a reference to an expression "party of crooks and thieves" referring to United Russia coined by the applicant earlier). One of the members of United Russia, a Mr S., sued the applicant for defamation. He was not named in the interview. The domestic courts found that the applicant had accused every member of the United Russia party of having committed a dishonest act, unlawful actions or having engaged in wrongful or unethical conduct. That statement was untrue because there was no evidence showing that every member of United Russia had committed a dishonest act or a crime. 10/10/2012 the Moscow City Court
RUB 30,000 (EUR 720) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and an order to post a notice of the judgment in the applicant’s blog
Failure to establish an objective link between the impugned statement and the person suing in defamation;

Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise

Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

720
1176/15
10/11/2014

and

55589/17
17/07/2017
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
The applicant was a candidate in the 2013 election for Mayor of Moscow. Less than 3 weeks before the election a blogger Mr K. published a post stating that, contrary to the requirements of electoral law, the applicant had concealed information about owing a foreign company. The applicant replied in his blog, exposing Mr K.’s allegations as fake news and referring to him as a "con man" (аферист). Mr K. sued the applicant for defamation. The domestic courts found that the applicant had not proved that Mr K. was a "con man". 14/05/2014, Moscow City Court
RUB 500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise, disproportionally high amount of fine
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-69, 8 September 2020
Art. 8 (1) - interference with the right to reputation, and inability to forge and maintain relationship with others in the professional and social sphere - A State television channel broadcasted and posted on its website videos alleging that the applicant had carried out his anticorruption activities on behalf of the United Sates and British intelligence services, who had paid him for his services, in order to undermine the Russian State. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s civil action for defamation, finding that the videos had not damaged his reputation and, moreover, some of the statements had been value judgments. Final decision: 24/03/2017, Supreme Court
-
27119/18
07/05/2018
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Vilnius
On 2 March 2017 the applicant and his team released a documentary titled “Don’t Call Him Dimon” on YouTube. The film claimed that the then Prime Minister of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, had used charities and shell companies to amass a collection of luxuries. It in particular suggested that a Russian billionaire, Mr U., had transferred the ownership of a luxurious mansion and land to a charity foundation run by Mr Medvedev’s former classmate, describing that transfer as a disguised bribe and calling for an investigation. The film relied on documents, including property deeds confirming the transfer of property from Mr U. to the charity foundation without any payment in return. The applicant then commented on the documentary in several interviews and further publications. Mr U. sued the applicant for defamation, claiming that the documentary and subsequent publications by the applicant had damaged his reputation. The applicant’s requests to call witnesses and to submit documentary evidence proving his allegations were rejected. The domestic courts ruled in favour of Mr U., finding that the applicant had published statements of facts, in particular accusations of bribery, tax fraud and pressure on journalists. Those accusations had not been corroborated with appropriate evidence, in particular evidence of a court conviction for bribery. Property deeds were no more than evidence of civil transactions for charity purposes which could not prove bribery in the absence of a criminal conviction. Nor had the applicant proved his other factual allegations against Mr U. In a separate defamation case, the charity foundation, which had allegedly received luxury assets from Mr U. on behalf of Mr Medvedev, also sued the applicant for defamation. The domestic courts ruled in favour of the foundation. The courts found that the applicant had not proved his factual allegations about the foundation’s participation in illegal and criminal activities. Property deeds confirming the transfer of property without payment were insufficient proof as they had not been declared null and void. 15/11/2017 Supreme Court; 23/04/2018 Supreme Court
First set of defamation proceedings: an order to remove from the documentary and other publications information relating to Mr U. which had been found untrue by the courts and to publish a retraction statement drafted by the courts. The applicant was subsequently fined for RUB 6,500 for the failure to comply with the judgments. Second set of defamation proceedings: an order that the applicant should post a notice of the judgment on his blog and remove sections of the documentary that concerned the charity foundation. Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest;

Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise; failure to specify which passages of the documentary and the publications it considered problematic and to examine them in detail and in context
Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 35-36 14 October 2008

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - First set of defamation proceedings: the applicant was unable to present evidence and call witnesses in support of his case as all his motions were rejected by the domestic courts, in breach of fair trial guarantees. -
56491/18
12/11/2018

and

11884/19
23/02/2019

Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

OOO ZP
2014

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Moscow

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
Mr Navalnyy posted a YouTube video “Yachts, oligarchs, and girls: a man-hunter exposes a bribe-taker” showing a deputy Russian prime-minister being lavishly entertained on the yacht of a Russian billionaire D. off the coast of Norway. The publication drew on photographs and videos published on the Instagram and YouTube accounts of an escort worker Ms V. who claimed having an affair with D. In his publication, Mr Navalnyy claimed that the deputy prime-minister’s stay on D.’s yacht – to which he had been brought in D.’s private jet – effectively amounted to a bribe from D.
OOO ZP is the founder and publisher of the online magazine Mediazona. The magazine published a summary of Mr Navalnyy’s YouTube video mentioned above. The publication included a hyperlink to the YouTube video, D.’s and deputy prime-minister’s photographs and a recorded route of D.’s yacht from an online ship tracking database. Asked for his comments, the deputy prime-minister said to the magazine that suing Mr Navalnyy in defamation would give him “too much honour” and that “other people would do it”. D. brought a civil claim against V. for the protection of his personality rights, claiming that V.’s Instagram and YouTube account featured multiple images which had been published without his consent. The domestic courts issued an interlocutory injunction requiring the Russian telecoms regulator to restrict access to D.’s images in V.’s accounts and also to Mr Navalnyy’s video on his YouTube channel and two related publications on his website, and to the Mediazona magazine’s webpage containing the above publication. The applicants learned about the proceedings after the injunction had been issued. They lodged appeals. The appellate court rejected them, holding that “a failure to take interim measures [might] render complicated or impossible the enforcement of the court’s decision”. 26/09/2018, the Supreme Court

06/11/2018, the Supreme Court
an interlocutory injunction requiring the telecoms regulator to restrict access to Mr Navalnyy’s publications on his website containing D.’s photographs and videos and to the video on his YouTube channel, as well as to the Mediazona magazine’s webpage containing the publication featuring D.’s photographs and an hyperlink to Mr Navalnyy’s YouTube video. Failure to apply Convention standards when balancing the right to private life under Article 8 and freedom of expression under Article 10: failure to take into account that the publication concerned a politician and contributed to a debate of public interest, that the photographs had been made public by V. and provided a factual basis for the allegations of bribery, failure to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the injunction
Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 90-93, 97-103, 148, ECHR 2015 (extracts)

-
29451/21
04/06/2021
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Vilnius
In July 2019, the applicant posted an article on his website regarding allegedly undisclosed wealth of Mr M., a notable figure in the “United Russia” party and a deputy of the Moscow City Duma. The publication alleged that Mr M.’s mother and teenage son owned several hotels in Austria that were not reported in his tax declaration, engaged in business activities contrary to the restrictions placed on deputies, and had not declared a considerable sum of money. He relied on documents, including property deeds, and court decisions. Mr M. sued the applicant for defamation. He did not deny the factual allegations contained in the article, but argued that the statements accusing him of being corrupt, a fraudster, a crook and a thief who had transferred stolen money abroad were defamatory. The applicant’s request to call witnesses and submit additional documents proving his allegations was rejected. The domestic courts allowed M.’s claim in part, finding that the contested statements were statements of fact which the applicant had failed to prove. 04/12/2020, the Supreme Court of Russia
an order to publish the operative part of the judgment on the applicant’s website and to remove from the article specific parts indicated by the courts. Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise);

lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, §§ 35-36 14 October 2008

-
34902/22
07/07/2022
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Mikhaylova Olga Olegovna
Moscow
In June 2020, the applicant made a public statement on Twitter and his Telegram channel about a video in support of amendments to the Russian Constitution featuring prominent citizens. The applicant commented the video as follows: “Ah, here they are, darlings. Honestly, this group of corrupt lackeys looks pretty pathetic so far. Just take a look at them—they’re a disgrace to the country. People with no conscience. Traitors.” One of the individuals in the video, World War II veteran Mr. A. lodged a criminal complaint alleging libel. The domestic courts convicted the applicant of criminal libel, finding that he had failed to prove factual allegations against Mr A., tarnishing his reputation. 17/03/2022, the Supreme Court
fine of RUB 850,000
Failure to apply Convention standards: Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise;

Manifestly disproportionate criminal conviction
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

Amorim Giestas and Jesus Costa Bordalo v. Portugal, no. 37840/10, § 36, 3 April 2014

-

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 per applicant
(in euros)[1]
62670/12
13/06/2012
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
1976
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant posted on his blog a hyperlink to a YouTube video created by former colleagues of Mr Sergey Magnitskiy, a tax lawyer who investigated a large-scale fraudulent tax refund from the federal budget. Relying on documents, including property deeds, company registration papers and flight plans, the video alleged that Ms S., the head of Moscow tax office no. 28 who had approved the refund, and her husband Mr S. had begun transferring large sums of money into offshore bank accounts and buying expensive properties in Russia and abroad within weeks of the refund having been approved. The applicant expressed his indignation in his commentary on the video. Mr S. sued the applicant for defamation. He did not deny opening offshore accounts or purchasing properties but disputed the allegation that he had used illegal money to do so. The applicant submitted to the domestic courts, among other things, a final criminal conviction dated 28 April 2009 in which a Mr M. had been found guilty of the fraudulent refund committed in conspiracy “with unidentified staff of tax office no. 28 in Moscow”. He claimed that the fact that Ms S. had been the head of that tax office and had immediately after that spent considerable amounts of money substantially exceeding her official income showed that there had been sufficient factual basis for the allegations in the video. The domestic courts allowed Mr S.’s claim, finding that the allegations that Mr S. had committed dishonest or illegal actions or crimes contained in the video and the commentary had not been corroborated with appropriate evidence, such as evidence of any criminal cases having been opened against the plaintiff in relation to the facts referred to in the video and commentary, or evidence of a court conviction finding him guilty of a criminal offence. The information about the plaintiff’s income was insufficient to prove that Mr S. had committed illegal acts. 22/12/2011, the Moscow City Court
RUB 100,000 (EUR 2,340) in respect of non pecuniary damage and an order that the applicant should post a notice of the judgment on his blog
Failure to apply Convention standards when imposing liability for a hyperlink;

lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest
Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary, no. 11257/16, § 77, 4 December 2018;

Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 35-36, 14 October 2008

2,340
32058/13
09/04/2013
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
Several days before December 2011 parliamentary elections the Russian-language Esquire magazine published an interview with the applicant. In the interview he criticised the ruling party United Russia, in particular saying that "if you have joined United Russia, you must be a thief. If you are not a thief, you are at least a crook because you use your name to cover up for other thieves and crooks" (a reference to an expression "party of crooks and thieves" referring to United Russia coined by the applicant earlier). One of the members of United Russia, a Mr S., sued the applicant for defamation. He was not named in the interview. The domestic courts found that the applicant had accused every member of the United Russia party of having committed a dishonest act, unlawful actions or having engaged in wrongful or unethical conduct. That statement was untrue because there was no evidence showing that every member of United Russia had committed a dishonest act or a crime. 10/10/2012 the Moscow City Court
RUB 30,000 (EUR 720) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and an order to post a notice of the judgment in the applicant’s blog
Failure to establish an objective link between the impugned statement and the person suing in defamation;

Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise

Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia, no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

720
1176/15
10/11/2014

and

55589/17
17/07/2017
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria

Pomazuyev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Vilnius
The applicant was a candidate in the 2013 election for Mayor of Moscow. Less than 3 weeks before the election a blogger Mr K. published a post stating that, contrary to the requirements of electoral law, the applicant had concealed information about owing a foreign company. The applicant replied in his blog, exposing Mr K.’s allegations as fake news and referring to him as a "con man" (аферист). Mr K. sued the applicant for defamation. The domestic courts found that the applicant had not proved that Mr K. was a "con man". 14/05/2014, Moscow City Court
RUB 500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise, disproportionally high amount of fine
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-69, 8 September 2020
Art. 8 (1) - interference with the right to reputation, and inability to forge and maintain relationship with others in the professional and social sphere - A State television channel broadcasted and posted on its website videos alleging that the applicant had carried out his anticorruption activities on behalf of the United Sates and British intelligence services, who had paid him for his services, in order to undermine the Russian State. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s civil action for defamation, finding that the videos had not damaged his reputation and, moreover, some of the statements had been value judgments. Final decision: 24/03/2017, Supreme Court
-
27119/18
07/05/2018
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Vilnius
On 2 March 2017 the applicant and his team released a documentary titled “Don’t Call Him Dimon” on YouTube. The film claimed that the then Prime Minister of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, had used charities and shell companies to amass a collection of luxuries. It in particular suggested that a Russian billionaire, Mr U., had transferred the ownership of a luxurious mansion and land to a charity foundation run by Mr Medvedev’s former classmate, describing that transfer as a disguised bribe and calling for an investigation. The film relied on documents, including property deeds confirming the transfer of property from Mr U. to the charity foundation without any payment in return. The applicant then commented on the documentary in several interviews and further publications. Mr U. sued the applicant for defamation, claiming that the documentary and subsequent publications by the applicant had damaged his reputation. The applicant’s requests to call witnesses and to submit documentary evidence proving his allegations were rejected. The domestic courts ruled in favour of Mr U., finding that the applicant had published statements of facts, in particular accusations of bribery, tax fraud and pressure on journalists. Those accusations had not been corroborated with appropriate evidence, in particular evidence of a court conviction for bribery. Property deeds were no more than evidence of civil transactions for charity purposes which could not prove bribery in the absence of a criminal conviction. Nor had the applicant proved his other factual allegations against Mr U. In a separate defamation case, the charity foundation, which had allegedly received luxury assets from Mr U. on behalf of Mr Medvedev, also sued the applicant for defamation. The domestic courts ruled in favour of the foundation. The courts found that the applicant had not proved his factual allegations about the foundation’s participation in illegal and criminal activities. Property deeds confirming the transfer of property without payment were insufficient proof as they had not been declared null and void. 15/11/2017 Supreme Court; 23/04/2018 Supreme Court
First set of defamation proceedings: an order to remove from the documentary and other publications information relating to Mr U. which had been found untrue by the courts and to publish a retraction statement drafted by the courts. The applicant was subsequently fined for RUB 6,500 for the failure to comply with the judgments. Second set of defamation proceedings: an order that the applicant should post a notice of the judgment on his blog and remove sections of the documentary that concerned the charity foundation. Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest;

Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise; failure to specify which passages of the documentary and the publications it considered problematic and to examine them in detail and in context
Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 35-36 14 October 2008

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020
Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - First set of defamation proceedings: the applicant was unable to present evidence and call witnesses in support of his case as all his motions were rejected by the domestic courts, in breach of fair trial guarantees. -
56491/18
12/11/2018

and

11884/19
23/02/2019

Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

OOO ZP
2014

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Moscow

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
Mr Navalnyy posted a YouTube video “Yachts, oligarchs, and girls: a man-hunter exposes a bribe-taker” showing a deputy Russian prime-minister being lavishly entertained on the yacht of a Russian billionaire D. off the coast of Norway. The publication drew on photographs and videos published on the Instagram and YouTube accounts of an escort worker Ms V. who claimed having an affair with D. In his publication, Mr Navalnyy claimed that the deputy prime-minister’s stay on D.’s yacht – to which he had been brought in D.’s private jet – effectively amounted to a bribe from D.
OOO ZP is the founder and publisher of the online magazine Mediazona. The magazine published a summary of Mr Navalnyy’s YouTube video mentioned above. The publication included a hyperlink to the YouTube video, D.’s and deputy prime-minister’s photographs and a recorded route of D.’s yacht from an online ship tracking database. Asked for his comments, the deputy prime-minister said to the magazine that suing Mr Navalnyy in defamation would give him “too much honour” and that “other people would do it”. D. brought a civil claim against V. for the protection of his personality rights, claiming that V.’s Instagram and YouTube account featured multiple images which had been published without his consent. The domestic courts issued an interlocutory injunction requiring the Russian telecoms regulator to restrict access to D.’s images in V.’s accounts and also to Mr Navalnyy’s video on his YouTube channel and two related publications on his website, and to the Mediazona magazine’s webpage containing the above publication. The applicants learned about the proceedings after the injunction had been issued. They lodged appeals. The appellate court rejected them, holding that “a failure to take interim measures [might] render complicated or impossible the enforcement of the court’s decision”. 26/09/2018, the Supreme Court

06/11/2018, the Supreme Court
an interlocutory injunction requiring the telecoms regulator to restrict access to Mr Navalnyy’s publications on his website containing D.’s photographs and videos and to the video on his YouTube channel, as well as to the Mediazona magazine’s webpage containing the publication featuring D.’s photographs and an hyperlink to Mr Navalnyy’s YouTube video. Failure to apply Convention standards when balancing the right to private life under Article 8 and freedom of expression under Article 10: failure to take into account that the publication concerned a politician and contributed to a debate of public interest, that the photographs had been made public by V. and provided a factual basis for the allegations of bribery, failure to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the injunction
Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, §§ 90-93, 97-103, 148, ECHR 2015 (extracts)

-
29451/21
04/06/2021
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich
Vilnius
In July 2019, the applicant posted an article on his website regarding allegedly undisclosed wealth of Mr M., a notable figure in the “United Russia” party and a deputy of the Moscow City Duma. The publication alleged that Mr M.’s mother and teenage son owned several hotels in Austria that were not reported in his tax declaration, engaged in business activities contrary to the restrictions placed on deputies, and had not declared a considerable sum of money. He relied on documents, including property deeds, and court decisions. Mr M. sued the applicant for defamation. He did not deny the factual allegations contained in the article, but argued that the statements accusing him of being corrupt, a fraudster, a crook and a thief who had transferred stolen money abroad were defamatory. The applicant’s request to call witnesses and submit additional documents proving his allegations was rejected. The domestic courts allowed M.’s claim in part, finding that the contested statements were statements of fact which the applicant had failed to prove. 04/12/2020, the Supreme Court of Russia
an order to publish the operative part of the judgment on the applicant’s website and to remove from the article specific parts indicated by the courts. Failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute: inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise);

lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the evidence produced by the applicant in support of contested factual allegations, imposing an excessively high standard of proof in respect of factual allegations contributing to a discussion of a matter of public interest

Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, §§ 35-36 14 October 2008

-
34902/22
07/07/2022
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY
1976
Died in 2024

Heir
Yuliya Borisovna NAVALNAYA
Born in 1976

Mikhaylova Olga Olegovna
Moscow
In June 2020, the applicant made a public statement on Twitter and his Telegram channel about a video in support of amendments to the Russian Constitution featuring prominent citizens. The applicant commented the video as follows: “Ah, here they are, darlings. Honestly, this group of corrupt lackeys looks pretty pathetic so far. Just take a look at them—they’re a disgrace to the country. People with no conscience. Traitors.” One of the individuals in the video, World War II veteran Mr. A. lodged a criminal complaint alleging libel. The domestic courts convicted the applicant of criminal libel, finding that he had failed to prove factual allegations against Mr A., tarnishing his reputation. 17/03/2022, the Supreme Court
fine of RUB 850,000
Failure to apply Convention standards: Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no proper balancing exercise;

Manifestly disproportionate criminal conviction
Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 63-68, 8 September 2020

Amorim Giestas and Jesus Costa Bordalo v. Portugal, no. 37840/10, § 36, 3 April 2014

-
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.