CASE OF ZLOBIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ZLOBIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 9096/13 and 9 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

This version was rectified on 25 September 2025

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

STRASBOURG

10 July 2025

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

In the case of Zlobin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 June 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 in application no. 9096/13 also raised another complaint 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 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 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 failure to apply the Convention standards as regards publication of a third person’s image (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012).

9.  In the above leading cases the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases (see Axel Springer AG, cited above, § 111; Kunitsyna, cited above, § 49; and Porubova, cited above, § 51).

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 (taking also into account the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022)) 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.

12.  The applicant in application no. 9096/13 submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Igor Kabanov v. Russia, no. 8921/05, §§ 30-44, 3 February 2011, as regards the lack of impartiality of judges in civil proceedings.

13.  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, and Matveyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 4128/18 and 4 others, § 11, 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 10 July 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]

9096/13

14/01/2013

Sergey Vladimirovich ZLOBIN

1963

Popova Yelena Vladimirovna

Volgograd

The applicant is a former judge of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd and ex-president of the Criminal Chamber of the Volgograd Regional Court. He was in conflict with his colleagues and had to resign. A journalist published some misleading information regarding his involvement in illegal activities. The applicant talked about this and the situation at the court at a radio show and during a press conference. The journalist and his company initiated defamation proceedings against him and the courts held in their favour, without providing the full assessment, and applying the Convention standards, giving full credit to the journalist’s statements of facts without verifying.

Volgograd Regional Court, 31/10/2012 and 29/05/2013

10,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 100,000 in non-pecuniary damage, RUB 4,000 in costs and order to refute statements

Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations

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)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - The applicant’s cases were considered by the courts in which he was working as a judge, from which he had been fired including, in view of his conflicts with colleague-judges, he provided domestic case-law confirming that the cases in similar situation should be transferred to another court, another region, final decisions: Volgograd Regional Courts, 31/10/2012 and 29/05/2013

(see Igor Kabanov v. Russia, no. 8921/05, §§ 30-44, 3 February 2011)

9,750

8288/18

08/02/2018

Olga Sergeyevna LI

1986

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich

Sofia, Bulgaria

The applicant is a chief editor of a newspaper. The newspaper published an article on a judge who during the hearing on an administrative case had stated that the accused had breached the law before conviction. The relevant paragraph read as follows: “Ex-prosecutor, judge of the Leninskiy District Court, Ms Sh., who shouted like a boor during the hearing on the administrative case and found our colleague guilty before being acquainted with the materials of the criminal case”. The judge initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 298.1 of the Criminal Code regarding libel in respect of a judge.

Kursk Regional Court, 07/09/2017

Fine in the amount of RUB 90,000

courts’ failure in their duty to supply “relevant and sufficient” reasons for finding the applicant guilty of libel and to identify “pressing social need” for the interference, no proper analysis of the punishment and its proportionality

Porubova v. Russia, no. 8237/03, §§ 36-51, 8 October 2009 (failure to apply Convention standards when convicting the applicant for libel)

7,500

50241/18

22/10/2018

Mark Zakharovich FEYGIN

1971

The applicant stated on the radio that Mr Sh., a private person, blogger, had been prosecuted for paedophilia in the Netherlands. The domestic courts refused to admit as evidence the documents submitted by the applicant, which, according to him, could have supported accusations made by him against Mr Sh. during the radio interview. The courts held against the applicant.[1]

Supreme Court of Russia, 07/08/2018

The courts ordered to refute the statement that Mr Sh. had been prosecuted for paedophilia

The domestic courts did not properly analyse the statements and refused to admit as evidence the documents submitted by the applicant, which according to him, could have supported accusations made by him against Mr Sh. during the radio interview[2]

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)

7,500

54340/18

07/11/2018

Irina Georgiyevna GREBNEVA

1943

Anastasiya Nikolayevna POPOVA

1986

The applicants published an article on the Internet about the president of a homeowners’ association and attached her photo to the article. They stated that the president did not properly comply with her duties. The latter initiated civil proceedings asking to delete her photo. The courts held in her favour.

Supreme Court of Russia, 22/06/2018

RUB 2,500 in non-pecuniary damage (to each applicant) and order to delete the photo

The domestic courts based their decisions mainly on the fact that the president of the association had not provided her consent for publication of her photo, they did not give due consideration to the principles and criteria as laid down by the Court’s case-law for balancing the right to respect for reputation and private life and the right to freedom of expression

Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012 (failure to apply the Convention standards as regards publication of a third person’s image)

7,500 to each of the applicants

17679/19

07/03/2019

Aleksandr Anatolyevich FROLENOK

1970

Terekhov Konstantin Ilyich

Moscow

The applicant shared a video from YouTube on his Facebook page, depicting a group of people in a boat pursuing a whale and repeatedly hitting him. The video had a headline (shared together with its content) that it had been a boat of a private commercial company, and that its CEO regularly breached eco-protection regime in the region. The applicant also posted a statement that “one could not treat the nature like this”. The company sued the applicant. He argued before the courts, that he was not the author of the video and merely shared it. The court held in the company’s favour.

Supreme Court of Russia, 11/09/2018

Paying costs (RUB 28,000) and publishing a rebuttal

Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations

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)

7,500

39244/20

27/08/2020

Dmitriy Dmitriyevich GUSHCHIN

1975

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich

Kazan

The applicant, a teacher, who earlier had been involved in the development of training material for the final school exams (“ЕГЭ”), made a publication on his private page on social network “Vkontakte”, where he assumed that there had been a leak of tasks. The Federal Service for the Supervision of Education and Science (Rosobrnadzor) lodged a defamation claim against the applicant on account of disseminating and publishing false information.

Supreme Court of Russia, 28/11/2019
(3-month extension of the 6-month period due to COVID)

Refute and delete the allegedly defamatory information

Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations

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)

7,500

28964/21

12/05/2021

Aleksey Veniaminovich SOKOLOV

1973

ASSOTSIATSIYA PRAVOVAYA OSNOVA

Kachanov Roman Yevgenyevich

Yekaterinburg

The applicants are the human rights organisation dealing mainly with the rights of prisoners and its director. The administration of IK-16 of Sverdlovsk Region (correctional colony for women) lodged an application against the applicants, stating that the materials about the conditions of detention in IK- 16 as described by the first applicant on his Facebook page and by the applicant company on its website constituted defamation. The colony administration sought the rebuttal of the statements and the deletion of the said materials. The applicants claimed that the materials were published as a result of a social investigation of the practices of torture and other cruel treatment of prisoners. The courts partially allowed the prison’s claims, found several statements to be defamatory and ordered to delete and refute them.

Supreme Court of Russia, 13/11/2020

RUB 12,000 and 1,200 in costs, order to delete and refute the relevant statements

Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no proper analysis of the claimant’s status, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations

Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 6-48, 13 December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article 152 of the Civil Code)

7,500, to each of the applicants

50559/21

03/09/2021

Yelena Andreyevna SELKOVA

1977

The applicant posted on Facebook critical publications about Ms Sh., head of a Moscow hospital and an MP in the Moscow City Duma. The publication denounced Ms Sh.’s actions in breach of the antimonopoly law on procurement of medical equipment (breaches established by the FAS decision of 21/02/2018). Ms Sh. lodged a defamation action. The courts concluded that the publications contained expressions giving an unfavourable assessment and a negative evaluation of Ms Sh.’s personality as a public person and that both the applicant’s value judgments and the factual statements her post contained were untrue.

Supreme Court of Russia, 10/03/2021

RUB 30,000 in non-pecuniary damage and to refute the statements

Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations, no proper balancing exercise

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)

7,500

46747/22

30/09/2022

Luiza Ruslanovna KHATSIYEVA

1967

Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich

Paris

The applicant, a citizen of Russia and France, is a political specialist, member of the EuroAsk international political club. She resides permanently in France. On 30/05/2017 she was invited to participate in a talk-show “Mesto vstrechi” (“Место встречи») on Russian television channel “NTV” (“НТВ”) on the subject of relations between Russia and France in the context of President Macron’s victory in the elections. During the debate between the applicant and the chief editor of the Russian television channel RT (Russia Today) Ms S., the applicant expressed a negative opinion about the RT’s coverage of the presidential company of Mr Macron. In particular, she said before she was interrupted: “You keep lying! The lie is that what was really spilled on the future president Macron, his wife, his family, there was as much mud as to allow him for a very good reason...”. Here the applicant was interrupted. ANO “TV-NOVOSTI”, a founder of the RT-channel, had instituted defamation proceedings against the applicant and the claim was granted.

Supreme Court of Russia, 02/06/2022

Order to refute statements and to pay about RUB 500,000 in costs and expenses

Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of the citations

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)

7,500

35756/23

18/09/2023

Viktor Anatolyevich SHENDEROVICH

1958

Koroteyev Kirill Nikolayevich

Moscow

In 2021 the applicant participated in a discussion at a radio show regarding Mr Ye. Prigozhin, now deceased owner of a private military group “Wagner”. The applicant called him “a murderer” and “criminal”. Mr Prigozhin initiated defamation proceedings and the courts held in his favour

Supreme Court of Russia, 19/05/2023

To pay RUB 1,500,000 in non-pecuniary damage and to refute the statements

Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of the citations, no adequate balancing exercise, no adequate amount of compensation, no analysis in that respect

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)

7,500

[1]  Rectified on 25 September 2025: the text was “The domestic courts refused to admit as evidence the documents submitted by the applicant, which demonstrated the truth of these allegations and held against him.”

[2]  Rectified on 25 September 2025: the text was “The domestic courts did not properly analyse the statements and refused to admit as evidence the documents submitted by the applicant, which demonstrated that his allegations were true”

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