THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KARTYZHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 40763/19 and 15 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 May 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kartyzhev and Others 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 24 April 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 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 restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. 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).
Procedural succession in application no. 26885/207. Following the death of Ms Murakhtayeva (application no. 26885/20) during the proceedings before the Court, her husband and sole heir, Mr Aleksey Murakhtayev, expressed the wish to pursue the application she had initially filed.
8. The Court has previously recognised the right of a deceased applicant’s next-of-kin to proceed with the application provided that they express a wish to pursue the proceedings and have a legitimate interest in the matter (see, most recently, Macatė v. Lithuania [GC], no. 61435/19, §§ 133‑35, 23 January 2023). In the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Mr Murakhtayev may pursue the application. It will, however, continue to refer to Ms Murakhtayeva as the applicant in the present case.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention9. The applicants principally complained under Article 10 of the Convention about unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression arising from their conviction under the provision of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) that sanctions disrespectful expression directed at the President of Russia, State and municipal officials and general public.
10. The Court reiterates that, given the broader limits of acceptable criticism towards politicians and the special status of satire as a form of artistic expression and social commentary, which inherently seeks to provoke through exaggeration and distortion, the criminal sanctioning of expression that does not amount to a gratuitous personal attack on a State official’s private life or honour may have a chilling effect on debate concerning matters of general interest. Such a penalty would be disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society, as politicians are expected to show greater tolerance to criticism than private individuals (see Eon v. France, no. 26118/10, §§ 55‑62, 14 March 2013).
11. 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 the complaints in the present case. The Court observes that the impugned expressions occurred within the context of public debate on matters of general interest, such as public spending, electoral integrity and protest rights. While some statements were crude or provocative, they primarily constituted political criticism or satirical hyperbole, which, by its nature, aims to provoke through exaggeration and distortion. Political speech, including criticism of the head of State, enjoys the highest level of protection under Article 10 of the Convention, and politicians are required to display greater tolerance to criticism than private individuals. The criminalisation of such expressions through administrative sanctions and the imposition of large fines had a chilling effect on public debate and were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
12. The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and declares that there has been therefore a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. Some applicants submitted other complaints 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 Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, regarding the deprivation of liberty within the context of administrative escort and arrest procedures, and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative-offence proceedings.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award 13,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant in application no. 24165/20, and EUR 10,000 to each of the remaining applicants in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Decides that Mr Murakhtayev may pursue application no. 26885/20 initially lodged by Ms Murakhtayeva; Declares the applications admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, EUR 13,000 (thirteen thousand euros) to the applicant in application no. 24165/20, and EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to each of the remaining applicants, 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 15 May 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
Representative’s name and location
Summary of facts
Final decision
Date
Name of the court
Penalty (award, fine, imprisonment)
Other complaints under well-established case-law
40763/19
24/07/2019
Yuriy Dmitriyevich KARTYZHEV
1984
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for referring to President Putin as a "fairy-tale dumbwit" in social media comments criticising the allocation of public funds to foreign aid rather than to children’s health.
Novgorod Regional Court, 23/05/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
49503/19
10/09/2019
Roman Nikolayevich VATANEN
1983
Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich
Samara
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for posting memes and comments criticising President Putin and other high-ranking Russian officials on social media.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia, 27/06/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
50402/19
10/09/2019
Alena Igorevna CHERVYAKOVA
1997
Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich
Samara
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for posting a video of herself performing reggaeton dance moves near a World War II memorial.
Bryansk Regional Court, 17/07/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
50479/19
11/09/2019
Kirill Sergeyevich POPUTNIKOV
1981
Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich
Samara
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for taking and posting a photo of someone else’s anti-presidential graffiti on social media.
Yaroslavl Regional Court, 19/06/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
51008/19
19/09/2019
Sergey Eduardovich KOMANDIROV
1995
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for calling for a social media protest against criminal prosecution of online critics of the President.
Smolensk Regional Court, 31/07/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
51018/19
19/09/2019
Ivan Petrovich PAKHNO
1982
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for reposting a statement made by the Ukrainian President, which discouraged the use of official portraits, while unfavourably comparing him to President Putin.
Stavropol Regional Court, 07/08/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
55902/19
30/09/2019
Ilya Sergeyevich PUTEVSKIY
1991
Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich
Samara
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for reposting someone else’s video critical of protest suppression which referred to President Putin as a "cowardly bitch".
Kemerovo Regional Court, 29/07/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
63136/19
20/11/2019
Igor Igorevich GORLANOV
1998
Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich
Samara
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for reposting a news article about another person’s conviction for calling President Putin a "fairy-tale dumbwit".
Kemerovo Regional Court, 07/10/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
64337/19
28/11/2019
Yuriy Klavdiyevich SHADRIN
1974
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO on two occasions for social media posts referring to President Putin as a "dumbwit" and comparing him unfavourably to Hitler and Stalin.
Vologda Regional Court, 28/06/2019 and 01/06/2020
First fine: RUB 30,000
Second fine: RUB 50,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5519/20
19/12/2019
Yevgeniy Alekseyevich ZHUKOV
1998
Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich
Samara
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for composing and posting a song criticising living conditions in Russia with lyrics referring to President Putin in offensive terms.
Kurgan Regional Court, 30/09/2019
Fine of RUB 40,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
5990/20
27/12/2019
Andrey Vladimirovich BYCHKOV
1988
Kamalova Raushaniya Rustemovna
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for blaming President Putin and officials for rising tick-borne diseases in his region.
Oryol Regional Court, 28/10/2019
Fine of RUB 40,000
20550/20
01/05/2020
Vladimir Aleksandrovich SHATSKIKH
1978
Seleznev Stanislav Aleksandrovich
Samara
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for posting comments criticising President Putin and government officials while discussing income decline, social housing, and a journalist’s arrest.
Orenburg Regional Court, 05/11/2019
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
24165/20
10/06/2020
Fedor Gennadyevich KRASHENINNIKOV
1976
Kamalova Raushaniya Rustemovna
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for using profane language directed at judges in a comment concerning the arrest of an anti-corruption activist. He was also convicted under the same provision for criticising Constitutional Court judges in connection with a presidential term-limit ruling.
Sverdlovsk Regional Court, 15/01/2020 and 27/07/2020
Fine of RUB 30,000 (first case)
Seven days’ detention (second case)
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant was taken to a police station without it being necessary,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
26885/20
15/04/2020
Irina Vyacheslavovna MURAKHTAYEVA
1973-2020
Heir:
Aleksey Viktorovich MURAKHTAYEV
1972
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for mocking a town’s name in criticism of the installation of a Stalin commemorative plaque.
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, 25/12/2019
Fine of RUB 70,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
36189/20
30/07/2020
Aleksey Valeryevich TYURIN
1984
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for comparing a protesting shaman favourably with President Putin in a social media comment.
Astrakhan Regional Court, 22/05/2020
Fine of RUB 30,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings
37477/20
06/08/2020
Anatoliy Aleksandrovich LILEYKIN
1950
Vertegel Feliks Yevgenyevich
Krasnodar
The applicant was convicted under Article 20.1(3) of the CAO for accusing President Putin of rigging the election and calling him a criminal after being denied registration as a presidential candidate.
Krasnodar Regional Court, 03/03/2020
Fine of RUB 70,000
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings