I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in PRIVATE NETWORKS LP v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-07-10
  • Communication date: 2020-09-01
  • Application number(s): 4945/20
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 10, 10-1, 13
  • 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: 0.690058
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

1.
The applicant company, Private Networks LP, is a limited partnership formed under the laws of Scotland, United Kingdom, in 2017 with the registered office in Edinburgh.
It is represented before the Court by Mr V. Zdolnikov, a person having control of the applicant company, and Mr S. Darbinyan, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows.
3.
The applicant company’s website “TgVPN” (www.tgvpn.com) provides access to a virtual private network (VPN) technology which enables users to establish a secure encrypted connection channel between their computers and remote servers.
TgVPN is a service for the protection of private communications, bypassing content filters and anonymous browsing of the Internet.
A Telegram “bot” – an auto-responder software service agent on the platform of the Telegram messenger – guides users who wish to perform a step-by-step setup of the VPN connection.
The applicant company is not affiliated with, or connected to, the owners of the Telegram messenger.
4.
On 13 April 2018 the Taganskiy District Court in Moscow issued, with immediate effect, an order to block the instant messaging application Telegram, for failure to provide the State authorities with technical means for accessing encrypted communications.
On 16 April 2018 a deputy Prosecutor General requested the telecoms regulator Roskomnadzor to block access to particular information channels on the platform of the Telegram messenger on the grounds that they contained “texts and videos promoting or justifying the activities of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Jabhat al-Nusra, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham and other illegal armed formations in the Syrian Arab Republic”.
He also requested Roskomnadzor to block particular “filter-bypassing services” which enabled users to access such content, and any future “mirrors” or copies of that content.
Within one week of those decisions, Roskomnadzor blocked access to approximately 20,000,000 IP addresses, including those of major cloud services such as Google, Amazon Web Services, DigitalOcean, Microsoft and Hetzner, which the Telegram messenger allegedly used for circumventing the blocking measures.
5.
In May 2018, the hosting service providers notified the applicant company that Roskomnadzor had blocked access to multiple domain names and IP addresses of its VPN service, disrupting its operation in Russia.
Roskomnadzor’s notices indicated that access had been blocked because of the content “promoting or justifying the activities of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” and other organisations listed in the Prosecutor General’s request of 16 April 2018.
6.
In June 2018, the applicant company sent a letter of complaint to Roskomnadzor.
It pointed out that the targeted domains and IP addresses did not have any unlawful content: the TgVPN website provided a description of the VPN service it offered, while the other blacklisted domains and IP addresses were used for technical purposes and returned blank pages.
It requested Roskomnadzor to disclose the text of the Prosecutor General’s request of 16 April 2018 with a view to verifying whether it had concerned the TgVPN resources.
Roskomnadzor refused to restore access to the applicant company’s resources or provide a copy of the request.
7.
The applicant company complained to a court that Roskomnadzor had acted beyond its legal mandate.
The TgVPN website or its supporting resources had not been listed in the Prosecutor General’s request of 16 April 2018.
They did not feature any proscribed content or “mirrored” any channels of the Telegram messenger.
8.
In its defence, Roskomnadzor submitted that, lacking technical means to block access to specific content on the platform of the Telegram messenger, it had implemented across-the-board blocking of the messenger to comply with the District Court’s order of 13 April 2018 and the Prosecutor General’s request of 16 April 2018.
While monitoring online resources, it had detected services, such as tgvpn.com, which enabled users to access prohibited information and channels on the messenger’s platform, and blocked access to them.
9.
On 19 September 2018 the Moscow Commercial Court dismissed the applicant company’s complaint, finding that Roskomnadzor had acted in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Information Act.
On proportionality of the blocking measures, the court held that the applicable legislation did not provide for any alternative measures for blocking access to websites which were used for disseminating proscribed content.
10.
On 7 December 2018 the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeals dismissed the applicant company’s appeal.
For the appellate court, the fact that the applicant company’s servers enabled users to access the Telegram messenger was established.
The applicant company should have adduced evidence showing otherwise but failed to do it.
11.
Cassation appeals were dismissed by the Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit on 22 March 2019 and by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 12 July 2019.
The Supreme Court declared itself incompetent to establish whether or not the applicant company’s resources were used for enabling access to prohibited content.
COMPLAINT 12.
The applicant company complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the wholesale blocking of its resources had no basis in the domestic law and that the domestic courts did not address the substance of its grievance.

Judgment

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

[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.