I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in ZHVAVYY v. UKRAINE.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DMITRIYEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 22646/07 and 4479/23 –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
12 June 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dmitriyevskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Mateja Đurović, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 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 association in application no. 22646/07 also raised other complaints under 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 principally complained of various restrictions imposed on their right to freedom of expression. They relied on Article 10 of the Convention. 8. In the leading cases of Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018, and Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, 7 June 2022, as well as in other cases listed in the appendix, the Court had previously found a violation of that provision concerning issues similar to those raised in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted, the Court has not identified any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion regarding the admissibility and merits of these complaints. In light of its established case-law, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not assess the matters in accordance with the principles established in the Court’s case-law. 10. Accordingly, these complaints are admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 11. The applicant association in application no. 22646/07 submitted additional complaints raising issues, in particular, under Article 11 of the Convention. In view of the Court’s relevant well-established case-law (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 these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention in light of its findings in the case-law cited in the appended table. 12. Having regard to the documents in its possession and its case-law (see Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above, and Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26410/10 and 20 others, 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;
(b) 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 12 June 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 per applicant
(in euros)
[1]
22646/07
23/05/2007
(4 applicants)
Stanislav Mikhaylovich DMITRIYEVSKIY
1966

Tatyana Nikolayevna BANINA
1978

Oksana Anatolyevna CHELYSHEVA
1967

OBSHCHESTVO ROSSIYSKO-CHECHENSKOY DRUZHBY

Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
The applicants - the executive director, deputy executive director and editor of an information bulletin of an association for Russian-Chechen friendship - complained about the dissolution of the association because of the executive director’s prior conviction for publishing statements by Chechen separatist leaders. After the executive director was convicted on 03/02/2006 (upheld on 11/04/2006), authorities ordered the association’s dissolution on 13/10/2006, citing failure to publicly distance itself from the executive director’s actions (deemed extremist), allowing him to remain in post despite his conviction, and other alleged irregularities. The applicants unsuccessfully argued that the irregularities were minor and remediable, the conviction was not for extremist actions, and legislation was applied retrospectively. 23/01/2007, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
dissolution
Excessively broad definition of extremism; failure to take statements in their context
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017, Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
Art. 11 (1) - Freedom of association – in connection with the dissolution of the applicant association (Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 138-89, 7 June 2022)
7,500
4479/23 08/01/2023
Yelena Ivanovna RODVIKOVA
1974

Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich
Syktyvkar
The applicant was convicted of extremist speech and glorification of terrorism for comments on social media regarding various legislative initiatives in which she sarcastically suggested that the parliament needed to be "blown up"
08/09/2022, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
fine of RUB 350,000
Excessively broad definition of hate speech; failure to take statements in their context
Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech)

11,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DMITRIYEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 22646/07 and 4479/23 –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
12 June 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dmitriyevskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President, Mateja Đurović, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 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 association in application no. 22646/07 also raised other complaints under 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 principally complained of various restrictions imposed on their right to freedom of expression. They relied on Article 10 of the Convention. 8. In the leading cases of Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018, and Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, 7 June 2022, as well as in other cases listed in the appendix, the Court had previously found a violation of that provision concerning issues similar to those raised in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted, the Court has not identified any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion regarding the admissibility and merits of these complaints. In light of its established case-law, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not assess the matters in accordance with the principles established in the Court’s case-law. 10. Accordingly, these complaints are admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. 11. The applicant association in application no. 22646/07 submitted additional complaints raising issues, in particular, under Article 11 of the Convention. In view of the Court’s relevant well-established case-law (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 these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention in light of its findings in the case-law cited in the appended table. 12. Having regard to the documents in its possession and its case-law (see Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above, and Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26410/10 and 20 others, 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;
(b) 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 12 June 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 per applicant
(in euros)
[1]
22646/07
23/05/2007
(4 applicants)
Stanislav Mikhaylovich DMITRIYEVSKIY
1966

Tatyana Nikolayevna BANINA
1978

Oksana Anatolyevna CHELYSHEVA
1967

OBSHCHESTVO ROSSIYSKO-CHECHENSKOY DRUZHBY

Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
The applicants - the executive director, deputy executive director and editor of an information bulletin of an association for Russian-Chechen friendship - complained about the dissolution of the association because of the executive director’s prior conviction for publishing statements by Chechen separatist leaders. After the executive director was convicted on 03/02/2006 (upheld on 11/04/2006), authorities ordered the association’s dissolution on 13/10/2006, citing failure to publicly distance itself from the executive director’s actions (deemed extremist), allowing him to remain in post despite his conviction, and other alleged irregularities. The applicants unsuccessfully argued that the irregularities were minor and remediable, the conviction was not for extremist actions, and legislation was applied retrospectively. 23/01/2007, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
dissolution
Excessively broad definition of extremism; failure to take statements in their context
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017, Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
Art. 11 (1) - Freedom of association – in connection with the dissolution of the applicant association (Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 138-89, 7 June 2022)
7,500
4479/23 08/01/2023
Yelena Ivanovna RODVIKOVA
1974

Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich
Syktyvkar
The applicant was convicted of extremist speech and glorification of terrorism for comments on social media regarding various legislative initiatives in which she sarcastically suggested that the parliament needed to be "blown up"
08/09/2022, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
fine of RUB 350,000
Excessively broad definition of hate speech; failure to take statements in their context
Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech)

11,000

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 per applicant
(in euros)
[1]
22646/07
23/05/2007
(4 applicants)
Stanislav Mikhaylovich DMITRIYEVSKIY
1966

Tatyana Nikolayevna BANINA
1978

Oksana Anatolyevna CHELYSHEVA
1967

OBSHCHESTVO ROSSIYSKO-CHECHENSKOY DRUZHBY

Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
The applicants - the executive director, deputy executive director and editor of an information bulletin of an association for Russian-Chechen friendship - complained about the dissolution of the association because of the executive director’s prior conviction for publishing statements by Chechen separatist leaders. After the executive director was convicted on 03/02/2006 (upheld on 11/04/2006), authorities ordered the association’s dissolution on 13/10/2006, citing failure to publicly distance itself from the executive director’s actions (deemed extremist), allowing him to remain in post despite his conviction, and other alleged irregularities. The applicants unsuccessfully argued that the irregularities were minor and remediable, the conviction was not for extremist actions, and legislation was applied retrospectively. 23/01/2007, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
dissolution
Excessively broad definition of extremism; failure to take statements in their context
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017, Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
Art. 11 (1) - Freedom of association – in connection with the dissolution of the applicant association (Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 138-89, 7 June 2022)
7,500
4479/23 08/01/2023
Yelena Ivanovna RODVIKOVA
1974

Kosnyrev Vladislav Vladimirovich
Syktyvkar
The applicant was convicted of extremist speech and glorification of terrorism for comments on social media regarding various legislative initiatives in which she sarcastically suggested that the parliament needed to be "blown up"
08/09/2022, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
fine of RUB 350,000
Excessively broad definition of hate speech; failure to take statements in their context
Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech)

11,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.