CASE OF SAMODUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SAMODUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 3007/06 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 February 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Samodurov 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 16 January 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, in particular, of restrictions on their right to freedom of expression due to sanctions imposed for allegedly offensive expression concerning religious beliefs.

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 restrictions on their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

8.  The Court reiterates that while States have a wide margin of appreciation in matters concerning religious sensibilities (see Rabczewska v. Poland, no. 8257/13, § 52, 15 September 2022, and Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania, no. 69317/14, § 73, 30 January 2018), this margin is not unlimited, and restrictions must be justified by relevant and sufficient reasons. The Court found a violation of Article 10, as the domestic authorities failed to adequately consider the broader context of the expressions in question and to properly balance the competing interests. Specifically, the authorities did not establish that the contested statements constituted an improper or abusive attack on objects of religious veneration, were likely to incite religious intolerance, or posed a threat to religious peace (see Rabczewska, § 64). The reasoning provided by the authorities was vague and declaratory, lacking a detailed explanation as to why the expressions were deemed offensive, other than their non-religious nature (see Sekmadienis, § 79). The Court further underscored that the mere fact of offence to certain believers or disapproval by the majority was an inadequate basis for justifying the restriction, as such an approach would render minority rights theoretical rather than practical and effective (see Sekmadienis, §§ 81-82). Furthermore, the authorities accorded absolute priority to the protection of religious feelings without sufficiently addressing the right to freedom of expression (see Sekmadienis, § 83). While the Court acknowledged that gratuitously offensive or profane expressions may legitimately be subject to restriction (see Rabczewska, § 47), it reiterated that religious groups must tolerate denial of their beliefs and even the expression of hostile doctrines (see Rabczewska, § 51). Restrictions, the Court finally noted, cannot be grounded solely on the perspectives of a single religious tradition (see Sekmadienis, § 80).

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it in the present case, the Court finds similar significant deficiencies in the domestic courts’ assessment. In the “Caution, Religion!” case (application no. 3007/06), the courts relied primarily on subjective statements from Orthodox believers and biased expert opinions, while dismissing contrary expert testimony without proper justification. They failed to analyse how the specific artworks, displayed in a museum setting, could realistically threaten religious peace. Similarly, in the “Forbidden Art” case (application no. 22081/11), the courts accepted at face value claims that people were offended merely by the exhibition’s existence, without examining whether the curatorial approach – including the screening of works behind walls with peepholes – mitigated any potential offence. In Mr Loskutov’s case (application no. 12543/13), the courts failed to consider that his poster was displayed briefly in a public space as a political expression concerning the prosecution of Pussy Riot members, and did not analyse how that temporary artistic protest could genuinely threaten religious harmony. In all cases, including that of Mr Savko (application no. 59476/12), the courts equated mere offence to religious feelings with incitement to religious hatred, without establishing any actual risk to religious peace or evidence of fostering intolerance. The courts also neglected to consider the exhibitions’ broader artistic and social purposes, treating any non-religious use of religious imagery as inherently offensive. This approach effectively granted one religious group veto power over artistic expression, as demonstrated by the courts’ reliance almost exclusively on Orthodox Christian perspectives, despite Russia’s constitutional secularism and religious diversity. Having regard to its case-law on the subject outlined above, the Court considers that the domestic authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression.

10.  The complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

11.  The applicants in application no. 3007/06 also complained under Article 10 that the Russian authorities, by discontinuing the prosecution of Orthodox zealots who destroyed the “Caution, Religion!” exhibits, failed to ensure the effective exercise of freedom of expression. This complaint is admissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. However, in light of the findings above, it is not necessary to examine it separately.

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant the amount of 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 850 for costs and expenses.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, EUR 10,850 (ten thousand eight hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on that amount, 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 6 February 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)