THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KASHAPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 1097/10 and 30 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 Kashapov 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 various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. Some applicants also raised other complaints under other 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).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention7. The applicants principally complained about the various restrictions imposed on their right to freedom of expression. They expressly relied on, or relied in substance on, Article 10 of the Convention.
8. In the leading case of Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia (nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 152–59, 7 June 2022), as well as in other cases listed in the appendix, the Court had already found a violation in respect of 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 determination of the criminal charges against the applicants by the domestic courts failed to provide adequate and effective safeguards against an overly broad interpretation of the concept of “extremism”. Furthermore, the domestic courts did not examine the matter in accordance with the principles established in the Court’s case-law.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocols, 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 the case-law cited in the appended table.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. Finally, some applicants also made additional complaints under various provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applications and that there is no need to examine separately these remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to 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,
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;Declares the complaints concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and the other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remainder of the applications;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 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 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/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]
1097/10
26/11/2009
Rafis Rafailovich KASHAPOV
1958
Chikov Pavel Vladimirovich
Kazan
The applicant, a Tatar civic activist and president of the Tatar Social Centre, was convicted of inciting ethnic and religious hatred under Article 282(1) of the Criminal Code for publishing six texts on the organisation’s blog. The texts discussed issues of historical interpretation, religious rights of Tatars and Muslims, and criticism of government policies.
Supreme Court of Tatarstan, 19/06/2009
18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years
The prosecution broadly interpreted academic and cultural discourse about minority rights as “extremism” without evidence of incitement to violence.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
10,000
29346/10
26/04/2010
Ayrat Mukharramovich SHAKIROV
1971
Akhmetgaliyev Ramil Khaydarovich
Kazan
The applicant, an Islamic preacher, unsuccessfully challenged a prosecutorial caution about “extremist activity” related to his preaching of “Ahl-as-Sunna” ideas and alleged use of prohibited religious literature.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, 23/11/2009
Caution issued
Caution targeted religious teaching without clear connection to violent or harmful activities.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
72797/11
10/11/2011
Zaur Nurbiyevich DZEUKOZHEV
1974
Kulokov Azamat Khazretovich
Maykop
The applicant, deputy chairman of the Circassian Congress NGO, received an official caution from prosecutors about “inadmissibility of extremist activities” based on his interview discussing territorial claims for a “Great Circassia” within Russia and statements about historical genocide of Circassians.
Supreme Court of the Adygea Republic, 17/05/2011
Caution issued
Caution targeted legitimate historical and political discourse about minority rights.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
61909/12
25/07/2012
CHERKESSKIY KONGRESS
2004
Kulokov Azamat Khazretovich
Maykop
The applicant organisation was issued with a second official caution for extremist activity under the Suppression of Extremism Act after publishing a letter thanking the Georgian Parliament for recognising alleged genocide of Circassians by the Russian Empire in 1763-1864. The courts upheld the caution, finding that the phrase “Russian-Circassian war” and references to genocide constituted incitement to ethnic discord between Russians and Circassians.
Supreme Court of the Adygea Republic, 06/09/2012
Caution issued
Excessively broad interpretation of the concept of extremism; lack of context-specific assessment.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
78116/12
10/11/2012
Aleksandr Stepanovich SUKHOV
1955
Golubov Dmitriy Leonidovich
St Petersburg
The applicant, an Orthodox priest, was ordered to remove a sign reading “Orthodoxy or death” from his church gates after a court declared it to be extremist material, despite the historical and religious context of the slogan and the applicant’s explanation of its spiritual meaning to his congregation.
Leningrad Regional Court, 10/05/2012
Sign ordered to be removed
The removal order targeted religious expression without consideration of context or intent.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
9163/13
25/01/2013
Eduard Valeryevich MOCHALOV
1974
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
The applicant, founder and editor of the newspaper Vzyatka, was implicated in the publication of an article about the status of the Chuvash language which authorities declared extremist for allegedly inciting ethnic enmity between Russians and Chuvash people.
Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic, 25/07/2012
Article banned
Academic/journalistic discussion of language rights treated as extremist content without evidence of incitement.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
33044/13
29/04/2013
Sergey Aleksandrovich ORLOV
1968
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicants (nos. 33044/13, 33801/13, 34067/13) were convicted of conspiring to establish a website containing allegedly extremist material that criticised regional leadership, exposed corruption, and discussed ethnic relations in Bashkortostan.
Supreme Court of Bashkortostan, 30/10/2012
Suspended prison sentence
Excessive interpretation of the concept of extremism
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
10,000,
to each of the applicants
33801/13
24/04/2013
(3 applicants)
Igor Vilsovich KUCHUMOV
1968
Ildar Makhmutovich GABDRAFIKOV
1965
Nikolay Anatolyevich SHVETSOV
1951
34067/13
29/04/2013
Konstantin Aleksandrovich NESTEROV
1986
69854/14
21/10/2014
Mikhail Valeryevich FELDMAN
1971
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
The applicant and his co-defendant (application no. 12227/16) raised the German flag on the Federal Security Service building in Kaliningrad, seeking to draw parallels between Russia’s claims to Crimea and potential German claims to Kaliningrad (former Eastern Prussia). He was convicted of disorderly acts motivated by political hatred under Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
Kaliningrad Regional Court, 06/10/2015
1 year and 1 month’s imprisonment
Prison sentence excessive for a symbolic protest action.
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – arrested on 26/04/2014; detention extended repeatedly, the last time until 26/10/2014;
Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad; Kaliningrad Regional Court. The courts cited the gravity of the crimes; no permanent work; risks of absconding and re-offending.
In cases involving non-violent expression, pre-trial detention should be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances, if at all (see Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, no. 13237/17, § 212, 20 March 2018)
13,000
8921/15
13/02/2015
Alsu Albertovna GARAPOVA
1993
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant saved a link to an opposition video criticising United Russia party on her VKontakte account in 2011. After the video was declared extremist material in June 2013 in ex parte proceedings in Novosibirsk, she was found guilty of mass dissemination of extremist materials under Article 20.29 of the CAO.
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 13/08/2014
Fine of RUB 1,000
Political material treated as extremism without evidence of incitement. Expectation to anticipate future legal prohibitions not yet in force at the time of the posting
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v. Russia, nos. 37949/18 and 83 others, § 111, 18 June 2024 (retrospective application of the prohibitions)
7,500
10964/15
20/02/2015
Yevgeniy Yefimovich ARONSON
1959
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant saved a link to an opposition video criticising United Russia party on his VKontakte account in 2011. After the video was declared extremist material in June 2013 in ex parte proceedings in Novosibirsk, he was found guilty of mass dissemination of extremist materials under Article 20.29 of the CAO.
Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic, 20/08/2014
Fine of RUB 1,000
Political criticism treated as extremism without evidence of incitement. Expectation to anticipate future legal prohibitions not yet in force at the time of the posting
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v. Russia, nos. 37949/18 and 83 others, § 111, 18 June 2024 (retrospective application of the prohibitions)
7,500
25309/15
12/05/2015
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich BYVSHEV
1972
Suchkov Vladimir Valentinovich
Orel
The applicant’s Ukrainian-language poem about the political situation in Crimea, published on VKontakte in March 2014, was banned as extremist material. This resulted in his inclusion in a list of suspected extremists, the freezing of his bank accounts under anti-terrorism legislation, and his dismissal from his teaching position.
Oryol Regional Court, 10/03/2015
Poem banned
Creative expression about political events treated as extremism
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
3973/16
31/12/2015
Rafis Rafailovich KASHAPOV
1958
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant, a Tatar civic activist, was convicted under Articles 280.1(2) and 282(1) of the Criminal Code for publishing six social media posts criticising Russia’s actions in the annexed Crimea and discussing Turkic peoples’ rights. The posts included historical comparisons, reports of protests, and calls for documentation of human rights violations.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, 13/11/2015
3 years’ imprisonment
Political commentary on international relations treated as extremism without evidence of hate or discrimination.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
10,000
12227/16
26/02/2016
Oleg Sergeyevich SAVVIN
1988
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
The applicant and his co-defendant (application no. 69854/14) raised the German flag on the Federal Security Service building in Kaliningrad, seeking to draw parallels between Russia’s claims to Crimea and potential German claims to Kaliningrad (former Eastern Prussia). He was convicted of disorderly acts motivated by political hatred under Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
Kaliningrad Regional Court, 06/10/2015
1 year and 1 month’s imprisonment
Prison sentence excessive for a symbolic protest action.
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
10,000
13550/16
03/03/2016
Konstantin Vyacheslavovich ZHARINOV
1971
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
The applicant was convicted under Article 280 of the Criminal Code for reposting in March 2014 a manifesto of Right Sector, which was declared an extremist organisation by the Supreme Court in November 2014.
Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 04/12/2015
2 years’ imprisonment
Expectation to anticipate future legal prohibitions not yet in force at the time of the posting
Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v. Russia, nos. 37949/18 and 83 others, § 111, 18 June 2024 (retrospective application of the prohibitions)
10,000
14856/16
29/02/2016
Anton Valeryevich PODCHASOV
1981
Dobreva Natasha Ognyanova
Sofia
The applicant was convicted under Articles 280 and 282 of the Criminal Code for reposting in February 2014 a text about Russian reactions to Maidan protesters. His inclusion in a list of suspected extremists resulted in his bank accounts being frozen under anti-terrorism legislation. The prosecution cited his critical posts about the government and opposition to the Crimean referendum.
Altay Regional Court, 04/09/2015
18 months’ imprisonment
Political commentary treated as extremism without evidence of incitement.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
10,000
35581/16
16/06/2016
Vladimir Aleksandrovich PODREZOV
1995
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Sofia, Bulgaria
The applicant assisted in painting the star on top of one of Moscow’s “Stalin’s skyscrapers” in the colours of the Ukrainian flag. He was convicted of vandalism committed on grounds of political hatred under Article 214 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
Moscow City Court, 17/12/2015
2 years and 10 months’ restriction of liberty
Restriction of liberty excessive for a symbolic protest action.
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
10,000
48631/16
26/05/2016
Aleksandr Anatolyevich SHELKOVENKOV
1995
Dmitriy Yuryevich KARASEV
1995
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
The applicants were arrested after blocking the entrance to the Basmannyy District Court in Moscow with a steel cable and padlock in protest against the trial of a fellow activist. They were found guilty of breaching public order under Article 20.1 § 1 of the CAO.
Moscow City Court, 18/12/2015 and 22/12/2015
2 days’ detention
The courts did not provide a factual basis for concluding that the applicants’ act led to any public disturbance or that they used foul language, harassed anyone or damaged any property.
Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, 18 January 2022
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - Inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention in the police station of the Krasnoselsky district of Moscow from 02/12/2015 to 04/12/2015: less than two sq. m. of space per person, no toilets, no access to drinking water, no hot food, and lack of an effective remedy to complain about these conditions
(see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 112-21, 31 July 2014),
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - The taking of the applicants to the police station without explaining why it was impossible to draw up an offence record at the place where the alleged offence had been committed and keeping them there after drawing up the offence record
(see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016)
13,000,
to each of the applicants
6587/17
18/01/2017
Igor Anatolyevich STENIN
1965
Dobreva Natasha Ognyanova
Sofia
The applicant was convicted of extremism for publishing the comment “Death to Russian invaders. Hands off Ukraine” on a VKontakte post about military operations in Donbass.
Astrakhan Regional Court, 21/12/2017
2 years’ imprisonment
Political commentary treated as extremism without evidence of incitement.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
10,000
14673/17
11/02/2017
Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZAVOLGIN
1994
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
The applicant, a university student, was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for saving a link to a music video on his VKontakte account in 2016, which had been declared extremist by the Sarov Town Court in 2015.
Yaroslavl Regional Court, 11/08/2016
Fine of RUB 1,000
Excessively wide interpretation of extremism.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
17942/17
28/02/2017
Vladimir Vladimirovich LUZGIN
1978
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
The applicant shared a link on VKontakte to an article about the Ukrainian Rebel Army that included statements about Soviet-German cooperation at the start of WWII. He was convicted under Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code of denying facts established by the Nuremberg Tribunal and spreading false information about USSR’s role in WWII, despite his references to historical evidence including the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and League of Nations’ condemnation.
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 01/09/2016
Fine of RUB 200,000
Criminalisation of historical debate about the past events
RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111‑12, 11 May 2021 (failure by the domestic authorities to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10, or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts)
7,500
30328/17
12/04/2017
Roman Yevgenyevich BONDAR
1994
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow
The applicant was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for saving a link to a music video on his VKontakte account in 2012, which was later declared extremist by the Sarov Town Court in 2015.
Belgorod Regional Court, 17/02/2017
10 days’ imprisonment
Expectation to anticipate future legal prohibitions not yet in force at the time of the posting. Excessively broad interpretation of extremism.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v. Russia, nos. 37949/18 and 83 others, § 111, 18 June 2024 (retrospective application of the prohibitions)
10,000
41147/17
24/05/2017
RUSSIAN POLITICAL PARTY VOLYA
2012
Anishchik Oleg Olegovich
Nikolskoye
The applicant political party’s leaflet “Address to Russian Army Servicemen” was declared extremist material for criticising Russian military involvement in Ukraine and alleged government misconduct. The court relied on an FSB expert opinion that concluded that the text called for violent overthrow of government based solely on its military audience, despite contrary findings by Ministry of Justice experts that the leaflet advocated only peaceful change. This extremism designation later served as grounds for the party’s liquidation.
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 24/11/2016
Applicant party liquidated
Excessively broad interpretation of extremism leading to suppression of political expression
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
47810/17
26/06/2017
Dmitriy Anatolyevich SEMENOV
1989
Glukhov Aleksey Vladimirovich
Novocheboksarsk
The applicant, an opposition politician, was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for social media posts from 2013-14 showing photos of an MP wearing an “Orthodoxy or death” t-shirt (a banned slogan). He was subsequently convicted again for mentioning the banned slogan while describing his own court case.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, 27/12/2016 and 18/04/2017
First conviction: Fine of RUB 2,000
Second conviction:
Fine of RUB 3,000
Excessively broad interpretation of the concept of extremism; lack of context-specific assessment. Automatic nature of electoral and public-event restrictions, without individualised assessment.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016)
8,500
56105/17
17/07/2017
Gennadiy Gennadyevich MAKAROV
1983
Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich
Moscow
The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment under Article 20.29 of the CAO for posting an uncaptioned image of President Putin wearing makeup, alongside critical commentary about the court decision that had banned a similar captioned image as extremist material. The court did not establish whether the posted image was identical to the banned one, which lacked a precise description.
Lipetsk Regional Court, 15/06/2017
5 days’ imprisonment
Excessively broad interpretation of the concept of extremism; lack of context-specific assessment.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
Prot. 7 Art. 2 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal - immediate execution of the sentence of detention; an appeal against conviction had no suspensive effect.
10,000
83310/17
30/11/2017
Yelena Yuryevna BLINOVA
1978
Romanov Pavel Valeryevich
Cheboksary
The applicant was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for reposting a statement by an MP discussing the legality of the slogan “Orthodoxy or death” in relation to another person’s conviction.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, 01/06/2017
Fine of RUB 1,000
Excessively broad interpretation of the concept of extremism; lack of context-specific assessment. Automatic nature of public-event restrictions, without individualised assessment.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
42633/18
27/08/2018
Aleksey Vladimirovich GLUKHOV
1983
Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna
Kazan
The applicant, a lawyer, was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for failing to delete a third-party comment containing a link to a video with a banned slogan, which appeared under his Facebook post about representing another person in court proceedings concerning the same slogan. The court rejected his defence that the comment was made without his knowledge.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, 19/07/2018
Fine of RUB 1,000
Excessively broad interpretation of the concept of extremism; lack of context-specific assessment.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
7,500
31261/19
25/05/2019
Konstantin Vladimirovich VINOKUR
1997
Sivoldayev Ilya Vladimirovich
Voronezh
The applicant was found guilty under Article 20.29 of the CAO for saving a link to a music video on his VKontakte account in 2010 when he was thirteen years old. The video was declared extremist by the Dorogomilovskiy District Court in Moscow later that same year based on an ethno-psychology study finding that it contained negative statements about police officers. He was prosecuted eight years later after a police review of his social media.
Voronezh Regional Court, 26/11/2018
Fine of RUB 1,000
Expectation to anticipate future legal prohibitions not yet in force at the time of the posting. Excessively broad interpretation of extremism.
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v. Russia, nos. 37949/18 and 83 others, § 111, 18 June 2024 (retrospective application of the prohibitions)
7,500
61449/19
18/11/2019
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich OGURTSOV
1991
Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich
Kazan
The applicant, a CSKA football club fan and social media administrator, was convicted under Article 20.3.1 of the CAO of inciting hatred towards a social group for publishing a verse mocking rival team Spartak Moscow and calling its supporters “shit” after they won the Premier League. The case was heard on the same day as charges were brought.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, 13/06/2019
Fine of RUB 10,000
Excessively broad and unforeseeable interpretation of hate speech.
Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 208, ECHR 2015 (extracts)
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016)
8,500
31674/20
18/05/2020
Yegor Sergeyevich ZHUKOV
1998
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
The applicant, a political science student and prominent YouTuber, was convicted of inciting extremist activities for statements made in his videos criticising politicians and discussing non-violent resistance methods. While using harsh rhetoric against authorities (“disgraceful system”, “Kremlin scum”), the applicant maintained that his videos consistently advocated for non-violent forms of protest and that his statements such as “fight the system firmly and systematically... use any form of protest... do everything you can” were part of legitimate political discourse.
Moscow City Court, 13/02/2020
3 years’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years
Excessively broad interpretation of extremism without indications of real calls to violence
Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)
10,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.