THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MAGLEVANNAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 13002/10 and 9 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 Maglevannaya 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 (“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. 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).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention7. 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 regards violation of the right to freedom of expression in civil defamation and libel proceedings (see Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02, § 28, 18 December 2008; Porubova v. Russia, no. 8237/03, §§ 39-41, 8 October 2009; and Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 39-42, 13 December 2016), as well as hate speech (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, §§ 90-101, 3 October 2017, and Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, §§ 54, 55, 61-66, 28 August 2018).
9. In the above leading cases the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases (see Kazakov, cited above, § 31; Porubova, cited above, § 51; Kunitsyna, cited above, § 49; Dmitriyevskiy, cited above, § 119; and Savva Terentyev, cited above, § 87).
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.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. Some applicants also raised additional complaints under Articles 6 and 18 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised in the present applications and thus does not find it necessary to examine the remaining complaints.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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), the Court considers it reasonable to award 10,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as related to costs and expenses, and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
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 under Article 10 of the Convention raised by the applicants admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints;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(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.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)
Legal issues
Relevant case‑law
13002/10
12/02/2010
Yelena Ilyinichna MAGLEVANNAYA
1981
Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich
Yekaterinburg
On 14/09/2008, 11/10/2008 and 12/01/2009 the applicant posted the following articles on the Internet: “The Fate of a Chechen in a Russian Prison”, “Torture of a Chechen Prisoner Continues”, and “Torture in Russian Prisons”. In her articles she described the detention conditions of a Chechen prisoner, Mr Z., revealed acts of torture committed in respect of him and posted photos of Z. with bruises. She based her articles mostly on the words of Z.’s sister, his lawyer and prison doctor.
Volgograd Regional Court, 14/08/2009
RUB 200,000 in non‑pecuniary damage and publish retraction
there is no evidence that the domestic courts performed a balancing exercise between the need to protect the prison’s reputation and the applicant’s right to impart information on issues of general interest such as ill‑treatment in prisons; neither did the domestic courts consider that the “dignity” of an institution cannot be equated to that of human beings (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, 8 October 2015, § 25; Lombardo and Others v. Malta, no. 7333/06, § 50, 24 April 2007; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 22, 19 July 2011);
the domestic courts did not advance any justification for punishment of the applicant for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by other persons, although they were required to give particularly strong reasons for doing so (see Dyundin v. Russia, no. 37406/03, § 34, 14 October 2008, Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 44, 8 October 2009)
Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46‑48, 13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article 152 of the Civil Code)
57250/11
21/08/2011
Nail Abdulkhakovich MIKEYEV
1950
The applicant wrote a text entitled “To the peoples and henchmen over them”. On 11/10/2009 T. presented it during a public gathering, a traditional Tatar prayer. On 19/02/2010 a search and seizure were carried out at the applicant’s home. Criminal proceedings were instituted against him. On 31/01/2011 the applicant was convicted under Article 282 § 1 of the Criminal Code for inciting enmity and hatred toward and debasing the dignity of the Russian-speaking population and public officials.
Ulyanovsk Regional Court, 09/03/2011
fine of RUB 150,000
inadequate reasoning in courts decisions; courts did not convincingly establish the applicant’s intention and purpose for disseminating the text, specifically incitement of others to engage in acts of enmity or hatred toward those groups or their members (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 204-80, ECHR 2015 (extracts))
Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)
64886/11
26/09/2011
Irina Georgiyevna GREBNEVA
1943
Demicheva Tatyana Petrovna
Vladivostok
This case concerns a publication of an interview with a former customs official about corruption in the regional customs office by an online newspaper. The interviewee stated, in particular, that the Deputy Head of the Far East Regional Customs Office was involved in corruption and supported smugglers. After the publication of the article, the latter sued the applicant, chief editor of the newspaper, for defamation. The courts held that the applicant was liable for disseminating unverified information that had tarnished the claimant’s reputation.
Primorye Regional Court, 28/03/2011
RUB 3,000 in non-pecuniary damage and publication of retraction
publication in question raised an issue of public concern, namely, it revealed a practice of corruption in the regional customs office; the impugned statements were made by an interviewee, who had relied on the facts he had found out by virtue of his office; he also stated before the courts that he had documentary evidence to corroborate those allegations, but the domestic courts had failed to examine it; the reasons, adduced by the domestic courts, cannot be “relevant and sufficient”
Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article 152 of the Civil Code)
30635/13
22/04/2013
Vasiliy Nikolayevich BOKIN
1965
The applicant was an editor-in-chief of Nash Golos, a local newspaper. In July 2009 he chose to publish an article entitled “Stop the genocide” concerning the use of the Mordvinia language in local schools. On 21 June 2012 a prosecutor sought the banning of this article as extremist material and its inclusion into the official list of extremist materials. Judge T. discarded a 2010 expert report commissioned by the authorities (and which concluded that the article justified terrorism), decided to order a new psychological and linguistic report, which was communicated to the applicant on 17/08/2012. The expert concluded that the article (i) could “contribute to the incitement” of hatred or enmity in relation to one’s nationality or language, namely towards Russians or such Mordvinians who did not support the teaching of Mordvinian in schools and universities; (ii) contains degrading or negative expressions in respect of the above people; (iii) contains expressions that justify a possibility and necessity of use of arms, which could amount to an indirect call for violence against opponents of the teaching of Mordvinian. On 21 August 2012 the judge refused to adjourn and issued a judgment banning the article, endorsing the expert’s conclusion. The applicant was also ordered to pay 18,000 roubles for the expert report. On 23/10/2012 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant’s subsequent cassation appeals were dismissed.
Ulyanovsk Regional Court, 23/10/2012
The article was banned and the applicant was ordered to pay RUB 18,000 for the expert report
definition of “extremism” in Russian law was overly broad and could be, and had been, applied to entirely peaceful forms of expression (see Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, § 201, 7 June 2022); the domestic courts did take into account the context in which the statements had been made, the political and social background, potential of the statements to provoke any harmful consequences, and the scope of their reach; their decisions did not contain any citation of the impugned comments or detailed analysis of the expert opinion (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017, and Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, §§ 80 87, 28 August 2018); they held that there was no reason to doubt the results of expert examination and did not provide the applicant with viable opportunity to put questions to the expert
Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech)
62380/13
27/08/2013
Irina Georgiyevna GREBNEVA
1943
Natalya Vladimirovna FONINA
1976
Demicheva Tatyana Petrovna
Vladivostok
The case concerns three publications exposing an issue of public concern, namely, a practice of ill-treatment used by the regional police to extract confessions from suspects. To give an example of such practice, the articles referred to court proceedings against two brothers, who had allegedly given their self-incriminating statements under torture. Two out of three articles, published by the first applicant, were written by the second applicant mainly on the basis of witness testimonies given at the brothers’ trial. The author quoted witness evidence to demonstrate the credibility of the brothers’ statements about their ill-treatment. Following the publications, the regional department of the interior lodged a defamation claim and the courts held in its favour.
Primorye Regional Court, 27/02/2013
Non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 3,000 to be paid by each applicant and publication of retraction
criminal action by a police authority (as opposed to an individual policeman) can hardly constitute a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 10 of the Convention (see Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 25, 8 October 2015); a measure proscribing statements criticising the acts or omissions of a State body can be justified with reference to “the protection of the rights or reputations of others” only in exceptional circumstances; the issue of police ill‑treatment is a matter of public concern, accordingly, the State does not enjoy wide margin of appreciation; it seems that the applicants acted in good faith when they referred to witness testimonies; the examination of the case by the domestic courts and their reasoning was rather superficial
Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article 152 of the Civil Code)
7305/14
17/01/2014
Marianna Nikolayevna CHERNOPAZOVA
1970
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
In 2012 and 2013, the applicant submitted electronic complaints about the fact that online appointments at the real estate registration office in the Lazarevskiy District in Sochi were so scarce that private intermediaries (scalpers) offered to submit documents without a need to wait in exchange for a considerable fee. A copy of her complaint was sent to the head of the Lazarevskiy office who sued the applicant in defamation and also instituted criminal proceedings against her for libel. She was found responsible for disseminating unverified information in both sets of the proceedings
Krasnodar Regional Court, 25/07/2013 and
Lazarevskiy District Court, 24/10/2013
Non-pecuniary damage of RUB 10,000 and publication of retraction; fine of RUB 20,000
the courts did not apply the requirements of protection under Article 10 weighed in the light of the applicant’s right to notify competent State officials about the conduct of civil servants which to the applicant appears irregular or unlawful (see Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 17224/11, § 82, 27 June 2017, and the case-law cited therein); disproportionate sanction
Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article 152 of the Civil Code), Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758/02,
§§ 17-31, 18 December 2008 (liability for defamation following complaints to State authorities), Porubova v. Russia, no. 8237/03,
§§ 36-51, 8 October 2009 (criminal conviction for libel)
20639/15
20/04/2015
Olga Alekseyevna LARINA
1943
Pisarev Oleg Aleksandrovich
Moscow
The applicant was the director and a shareholder of a company. In 2008 she talked at a conference about allegedly unlawful activities of State officials involved in a hostile take-over of her company. Some information about that conflict was also published on the Internet by a human rights defender. Subsequently, the above officials initiated defamation proceedings against her, human rights defender and some other participants to the conference
Moscow Regional Court, 27/10/2014
Publication of retraction and to take down the publications
the national courts did not carry out a proper analysis of the allegedly defamatory statements, arguments, and evidence put forward by the parties; they did not properly distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments; the courts did not properly take into account the applicant’s position, the plaintiff’s position and the subject-matter of the statements
Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article 152 of the Civil Code)
7101/19
23/01/2019
Svetlana Alekseyevna GANNUSHKINA
1942
CIVIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE
2001
Arapova Galina Yuryevna
Voronezh
The first applicant, director of the second applicant organisation, published on Facebook a post by Mr D., one of the residents of the Chechen Republic. He stated that he had been threatened by a Deputy Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and that his village had been besieged because of his public complaints about poor situation in his village. The Ministry of Interior in Chechnya initiated defamation proceedings against the applicants. The domestic courts allowed its claim.
Supreme Court of Russia, 09/07/2018 (received on 23/07/2018)
Publication of retraction
the national courts did not carry out a proper analysis of the allegedly defamatory statements, arguments, and evidence put forward by the parties; they did not properly distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments; the courts did not properly take into account the applicants’ position, the plaintiffs’ position and the subject-matter of the statements
Kunitsyna
v. Russia,
no. 9406/05,
§§ 46-48,
13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article 152 of the Civil Code)
37153/19
25/06/2019
Marina Matveyevna MACHNEVA
1946
Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich
St Petersburg
The applicant published on social media a video of her meeting with the head of the State Housing Inspection in St Petersburg which also contained her statements that the official was incompetent, arrogant, lacked legal skills, unfit to be a leader and that he was not respecting his working schedule. The official initiated defamation proceedings. The courts held against the applicant.
Supreme Court of Russia, 20/12/2018
(served on the applicant on 15/01/2019)
Take down the publication and pay RUB 10,000 in non‑pecuniary damage
the national courts did not carry out a proper analysis of the allegedly defamatory statements, arguments, and evidence put forward by the parties; they did not properly distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments; the courts did not properly take into account the applicant’s position, the plaintiff’s position and the subject-matter of the statements
Kunitsyna
v. Russia,
no. 9406/05,
§§ 46-48,
13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute,
Article 152 of the Civil Code)
7745/20
30/01/2020
Nikolay Vladimirovich TURKOV
1989
Shmygina Yekaterina Mikhaylovna
Voronezh
The applicant published on Facebook a post stating that during a residents’ meeting in one of Moscow Districts he had been unlawfully apprehended on the grounds that he had not had his passport on him and had been beaten by police officers. He also posted statements by an eyewitness who confirmed that police officers had used force and tried to take the applicant’s mobile phone. The Ministry of the Interior initiated defamation proceedings against the applicant
Supreme Court of Russia, 30/07/2019
Take down the impugned publication
the national courts did not carry out a proper analysis of the allegedly defamatory statements, arguments, and evidence put forward by the parties; they did not properly distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments; the courts did not properly take into account the applicant’s position, the plaintiff’s position and the subject-matter of the statements
Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article 152 of the Civil Code)