NOVAYA GAZETA A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

26410/10

15/04/2010

NOVAYA GAZETA

1998

Leonid Vasilyevich NIKITINSKIY

1953

Kozheurov Yaroslav Sergeyevich

Moscow

In March 2009 the first applicant published an article written by the second applicant, which covered the alleged brutal arrest of Mr Sh. by unnamed police officers in the city of Omsk. Following a civil action brought by the Department of the Interior of the Omsk Region, the applicants were held liable for defamation under Article 152 of the Civil Code in respect of several statements tarnishing the business reputation of the Department of the Interior.

18/11/2009 Omsk Regional Court

Award of RUB 40,000 (the first applicant) and RUB 2,000 (the second applicant) to the plaintiff in compensation for non-pecuniary damage

Order to publish a rebuttal of the disputed passages

no legitimate aim in the protection of the "business reputation" of a body of the executive entrusted with the powers of the State

OOO Memo v. Russia, no. 2840/10, 15 March 2022 (lack of a legitimate aim of the interference, "business reputation" of a legal entity exercising public power)

6,190,

to the first applicant;

5,000,

to the second applicant

61391/11

16/09/2011

NOVAYA GAZETA

1998

Roman Aleksandrovich ANIN

1986

Kozheurov Yaroslav Sergeyevich

Moscow

In July 2010 the first applicant published an article written by the second applicant concerning alleged corruption in the course of renovation works of a state property in Sochi managed by the Administrative Directorate of the President of Russia (“Управление делами Президента РФ”). It was based on publications and interviews in other media outlets reporting that Mr M. had publicly claimed to have paid a bribe to a Kremlin official in order to obtain a contract for the renovation work, as well as on the second applicant’ s interview with Mr M. Following civil proceedings brought by the Directorate and its head, Mr K., the applicants were found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for defaming Mr K. and for tarnishing business reputation of the Directorate.

22/03/2011 Moscow City Court

Award of RUB 100,000 (the first applicant) and RUB 30,000 (the second applicant) to Mr K. in compensation for moral damage.

Order to publish a rebuttal of the disputed passages

lack of particularly strong reasons for holding the applicants responsible for the dissemination of statements made by another person;

lack of distinction between statements of facts and value judgments; no legitimate aim in the protection of the "business reputation" of a body of the executive entrusted with the powers of the State

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), OOO Memo v. Russia, no. 2840/10, 15 March 2022 (lack of a legitimate aim of the interference, "business reputation" of a legal entity exercising public power)

7,500,

to the fist applicant;

5,700,

to the second applicant

35034/13

18/09/2012

(4 applicants)

NOVAYA GAZETA

1998

Roman Aleksandrovich ANIN

1986

Zinaida Gennadyevna BURSKAYA

1900

Sergey Yuryevich KANEV

1962

Kozheurov Yaroslav Sergeyevich

Moscow

In May 2011 the first applicant published three articles written by the second, third and fourth applicants respectively about the Administrative Directorate of the President of Russia (“Управление делами Президента РФ”). The second applicant’s article covered the alleged misuse of public funds in the course of public works and was based on financial documents; it put questions to the reader regarding the role of the Directorate in the works in question. The third applicant’s article reported on considerable discrepancies between the official salaries of the Directorate’s staff as described by Mr K. in the interview to a third newspaper and the data on the staff’s annual income available on the Directorate’s website; it also contained a phrase which in the journalist’s assertion was her value judgment regarding Mr K.’s interview. The article by the fourth applicant referred to the contracts concluded between the Directorate and some shell companies (“фирмы однодневки”) that had been allegedly involved in unlawful activities; it was based on the information obtained from the official register of State contracts.

Following three sets of separate civil proceedings brought by the Directorate and, as regards the third applicant, by its head, Mr K., the applicants were found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for defaming Mr K. and for tarnishing business reputation of the Directorate. The three sets of claims were examined by the same courts; the appeal judgments were delivered on the same date.

22/03/2012 Moscow City Court

Award of RUB 100,000 (the first applicant) and RUB 10,000 (the third applicant) to Mr K. in compensation for moral damage.

Order to publish a rebuttal of the disputed passages (in all sets of proceedings)

lack of distinction between statements of facts and value judgments; no legitimate aim in the protection of the "business reputation" of a body of the executive entrusted with the powers of the State

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), OOO Memo v. Russia, no. 2840/10, 15 March 2022 (lack of a legitimate aim of the interference, "business reputation" of a legal entity exercising public power)

2,500,

to the fist applicant;

5,000,

to each of the second and fourth applicants;

5,250,

to the third applicant

830/14

06/12/2013

Sergey Viktorovich OVINNIKOV

1978

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich

Kazan

In August 2012, following alleged ill-treatment by police officer R., the applicant held a peaceful assembly to denounce police brutality. One of the participants in the assembly held a poster with a photograph of R. and an inscription describing him as an aggressive "particularly dangerous member of the organised criminal group of policemen". Following civil proceedings brought by R., the applicant was found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for defaming R.’s honour, dignity and business reputation. The domestic courts held that the applicant, as the organiser of the meeting, was responsible for the dissemination of the information, notwithstanding the fact that he did not hold the poster himself.

10/06/2013 Ulyanovsk Regional Court

Award of RUB 3,000 to R. in compensation for non-pecuniary damage

failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute; lack of particularly strong reasons for holding the applicant responsible for the dissemination of statements made by another person; lack of distinction between statements of facts and value judgments

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

56439/14

23/07/2014

Nikita Yevgenyevich GIRIN

1990

NOVAYA GAZETA

1998

Kozheurov Yaroslav Sergeyevich

Moscow

In November 2013 the second applicant published an article written by the first applicant concerning Mr G., a judge of the Moscow City Court at the material time, and Mr. B, a former judge of that court. The article reported on allegedly extensive unattributed borrowings from Mr B.’s thesis for a higher doctorate degree in Mr G.’s doctoral thesis. Initially, by a judgment of 06/12/2013, the applicants were found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for tarnishing Mr B.’ and Mr G.’s honour, dignity and business reputation and ordered to pay RUB 100,000 (the second applicant) and RUB 50,000 (the first applicant) to each of the claimants and to publish a retraction (the second applicant). Between March and May 2014 the judgement was executed. Following a cassation appeal, Mr B.’s and Mr G.’s claims were rejected in full. In August 2016, a reversal of the execution of the judgment in the part concerning the compensation awarded to the claimants was ordered. The reversal decision made no reference to the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. Mr G. reimbursed the money he had received; however, Mr B. never repaid the amounts transferred to him in execution of the judgment of 06/12/2013.

05/10/2015 Moscow Regional Court

Award of RUB 100,000 (the first applicant) and RUB 50,000 (the second applicant) to Mr B. and Mr G.

Order to publish a rebuttal of the disputed passages

failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute;

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)

1,000,

to each of the applicants

8288/15

02/02/2015

ANO REDAKTSIYA OBLASTNOY GAZETY GOROD

Kozyrev Denis Yevgenyevich

Velikiye Luki

In August 2013 the applicant, acting as the editorial office of the regional newspaper Gorod, published two articles which described Mr S. – a regional politician and candidate for election – as a “jailbird MP” («депутат-уголовник») who was having “an intense criminal lifestyle” («насыщенная криминальная жизнь»). Following civil proceedings brought by Mr. S., the applicant was found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for tarnishing the plaintiff’s honour and dignity.

04/08/2014 Yaroslavl Regional Court

Award of RUB 40,000 in respect of non- pecuniary damage and RUB 15,600 for legal costs to Mr. S.

failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute; lack of distinction between statements of facts and value judgments

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

28873/15

28/05/2015

OOO TELEKANAL DOZHD

2008

Samorodkina Mariya Valeryevna

Moscow

In January 2014, on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the lifting of the siege of Leningrad, the applicant company, owner of the independent television channel TV Rain, conducted an online poll on its website and Twitter account with the following question: "Should Leningrad have been surrendered so that hundreds of thousands of lives could have been spared?". Following a civil action brought by Mr A. and Mr I., two senior citizens who lived in Leningrad during the siege, the applicant company was found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for defaming the plaintiffs’ honour and dignity, as the wording of the question was considered disrespectful and offensive.

28/11/2014 Moscow City Court

Award of RUB 100,000 to each of the plaintiffs in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Order to publish the information about the court decision on the applicant company’s Twitter account

failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute

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)

3,500

17548/15

25/03/2015

AND

67686/16

30/09/2016

Darya Vladimirovna POLYUDOVA

1989

Popkov Aleksandr Vasilyevich

Sochi

Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna

Kazan

The applicant, a civil activist, was arrested, remanded in custody and later convicted under Articles 280 and 280.1 of the Criminal Code (public calls for extremist activities and public incitement to violate Russia’s territorial integrity) for (a) displaying a banner with the slogan "Not a war in Ukraine, but a revolution in Russia! Not a war, but a revolution!" and (b) publishing on her VKontakte page (i) a photograph of herself with this banner; (ii) an untitled text blaming the Russian President’s "capitalism" for terrorist attacks and disasters in Russia and calling for a revolution; and (iii) a text entitled "Let’s give Putler a smack with his own weapon", suggesting that a large region of Russia, commonly known as Kuban, should be annexed to Ukraine.

30/03/2016 Krasnodar Regional Court

Two years’ imprisonment, coupled with a two-year ban on exercising any function in the mass media, the educational sphere and at mass events.

lack of foreseeability of the anti-extremism legislation, severity of the sentence for a press offence

Mukhin v. Russia, no. 3642/10, §§ 141 45, 14 December 2021 (no exceptional circumstances to justify an extremely harsh measure in the form of a custodial sentence and a ban on exercising certain activities), Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism)

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Detention between 29/08/2014 and 24/02/2015: no sufficient grounds for remanding the applicant in custody for a press offence (application no. 17548/15)

9,750

8671/17

30/12/2016

OOO MEMO

2007

Grigoriy Sergeyevich SHVEDOV

1976

Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich

Moscow

The applicant company is the founder and publisher of the online media outlet Caucasian Knot (Кавказский узел), of which the second applicant is the editor-in-chief. On 29/12/2015, the Caucasian Knot published an article containing excerpts from a legal analysis of the charges against two persons who allegedly killed Russian military personnel in Grozny in January 1995, and quoting profane language used by third persons. The Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) issued a caution to the applicant company and also brought charges against the second applicant for distributing a publication containing profane language, an offence under Article 13.21 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Following an administrative trial, the second applicant was found guilty as charged.

25/07/2016 Ostankinskiy District Court (the applicant)

22/09/2016 Moscow City Court (the applicant company)

Caution (the applicant company)

Fine of RUB 5,000 (the second applicant)

domestic authorities’ failure to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10 or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts;

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)

12,000,

to the applicant company (also in respect of applications nos. 22133/17, 42034/19, 53194/19 and 64207/19)

EUR 10,000,

to the applicant, Mr G. Shvedov (also in respect of applications nos. 42034/19, 53194/19 and 64207/19)

22133/17

21/02/2017

OOO MEMO

2007

Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich

Moscow

The applicant company is the founder and publisher of the online media outlet Caucasian Knot (Кавказский узел). On 11/11/2015 the Caucasian Knot published a news concerning the conviction of a woman who had ill-treated her four-year-old stepdaughter. The name of the child victim and the circumstances of the crime had been taken from a press release on the website of the Government of Chechnya. On 30/12/2016 the Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) issued a caution to the applicant company pursuant to Art. 4 and 16 of the Mass Media Act for disclosing the personal data of the child victim. The issuance of the caution was later upheld by domestic courts.

22/09/2016, Moscow City Court

Caution

domestic authorities’ failure to apply standards in conformity with principles embodied in Article 10 or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts; possibility for the press to rely on the content of official reports

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)

42034/19

28/07/2019

OOO MEMO

2007

Grigoriy Sergeyevich SHVEDOV

1976

Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich

Moscow

The applicant company is the founder and publisher of the online media outlet Caucasian Knot (Кавказский узел), of which the applicant is the editor-in-chief.

On 02/08/2018 the Caucasian Knot published an article about mass baptism in a military unit of the Nagorno Karabakh Defence Army. The article included a passage about children of parents belonging to minority religions who were punished for refusing to perform military service. As an example, it cited the case of one of Jehovah’s Witness who had been arrested in 2011 for evading military service. On 24/08/2018 the Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) charged both the applicant company and the second applicant with an offence under Article 13.15(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) for writing about Jehovah’s Witnesses without the required note that their organisation had been banned in Russia for extremism. After an administrative trial they were found guilty as charged.

30/01/2019, Ostankinskiy District Court

Fine of RUB 40,000 (the applicant company) and of RUB 4,000 (the second applicant)

excessively broad definition of extremism; 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

Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158‑59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), 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)

53194/19

27/09/2019

OOO MEMO

2007

Grigoriy Sergeyevich SHVEDOV

1976

Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich

Moscow

The applicant company is the founder and publisher of the online media outlet Caucasian Knot (Кавказский узел), of which the second applicant is the editor-in-chief.

First publication

On 06/09/2018 the Caucasian Knot published on its website a chart of the top ten local blogs which included a Facebook post with a video showing a violent altercation and a shouting match between court bailiffs and family members of two defendants containing profane language. The Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) issued a caution to the applicant company and brought charges against the applicant company and the second applicant for distributing a publication containing profane language, an offence under Article 13.15(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences. After an administrative trial, they were found guilty as charged.

Second publication:

On 07/10/2018 the Caucasian Knot published a guest blogger’s post on its website that contained a link to another person’s YouTube video showing a brawl that had broken out after a mixed martial arts fight and that contained profane language. Roskomnadzor issued a caution to the applicant company and brought charges against the applicant company and the second applicant for distributing a publication containing profane language, an offence under Article 13.15(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences. After an administrative trial, they were found guilty as charged.

27/03/2019, Ostankinskiy District Court (four decisions)

First publication

Fine of RUB 50,000 (the applicant company) and of 10,000 RUB (the second applicant).

Second publication

Fine of RUB 20,000 (the applicant company) and of 5,000 RUB (the second applicant)

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; lack of particularly strong reasons for holding the applicants responsible for the dissemination of statements made by another person

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)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings -

64207/19

11/12/2019

OOO MEMO

2007

Grigoriy Sergeyevich SHVEDOV

1976

Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich

Moscow

The applicant company is the founder and publisher of the online media outlet Caucasian Knot (Кавказский узел), of which the second applicant is the editor-in-chief.

On 25/10/2018 the Caucasian Knot published on its website a chart of the top ten local blogs which included a Facebook post with a video which was made by an eyewitness to a major flood in Tuapse containing profane language. The Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) issued a caution to the applicant company and brought charges against the applicant company and the applicant for distributing a publication containing profane language, an offence under Article 13.15(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences. After an administrative trial, they were found guilty as charged.

13/06/2019, Ostankinskiy District Court

Fine of RUB 50,000 (the applicant company) and of 10,000 RUB (the second applicant)

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; lack of particularly strong reasons for holding the applicants responsible for the dissemination of statements made by another person

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)

22817/21

23/04/2021

OOO ZP

2014

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich

Kazan

The applicant company is the owner of the media outlet MediaZona. On 13/12/2018 MediaZona published an article on its website about the suicide of Mr I.P. following his alleged torture by the police. The article stated that the deceased had jumped from a roof and provided the location of his fall. On 24/12/2018 the Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) included the address of the website page containing the contested article in its unified register of websites containing information that was prohibited for dissemination in Russia on the grounds of promoting suicide, in accordance with section 15.1 of the Information Act (Federal Law No. 149 FZ of 27 July 2006). By a letter of the same date, it warned the applicant company that if the information on suicide was not removed, the website would be blocked within 24 hours. On the same day, MediaZona removed the details regarding the place and method of suicide from the article. The applicant company filed an administrative claim to have Roskomnadzor’s decision declared unlawful, but to no avail.

23/10/2020, Supreme Court of Russia

Removal of information from the website.

Warning of blocking measures

lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures

Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33 47, 23 June 2020, Engels v. Russia, no. 61919/16, §§ 24 35, 23 June 2020 (lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures)

7,500

43551/21

12/08/2021

THE INDEPENDENT BARENTS OBSERVER AS

2015

Olenichev Maksim Vladimirovich

Petrozavodsk

The applicant company is the owner of the online media outlet, which is accessible on the website www.thebarentsobserver.com. On 14/01/2019 the applicant published an article describing the life path of a gay man, including his attempted suicide. On 28/01/2019 the Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) included the address of the website page of the contested article in its Integrated Register of websites containing information that is prohibited for dissemination in Russia on the grounds of promoting suicide, in accordance with section 15.1 of the Information Act (Federal Law No. 149 FZ of 27 July 2006). On 29/01/2019 Roskomndazor informed the applicant company thereof and requested it to delete the article, but the applicant company did not comply. On 18/02/2019 Roskomndazor included the IP address of the website www.thebarentsoverver.com in the Integrated Register. On 19/02/2019 the website became inaccessible in Russia. The applicant company filed an administrative claim to declare the decision of 28/01/2019 unlawful but to no avail.

12/02/2021, Supreme Court of Russia

Blocking of the website

lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures

Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33 47, 23 June 2020, Engels v. Russia, no. 61919/16, §§ 24 35, 23 June 2020 (lack of foreseeability and safeguards in the domestic law against excessive and arbitrary effects of website blocking measures)

7,500

45687/21

30/06/2021

Dmitriy Andreyevich MURATOV

1961

Kozheurov Yaroslav Sergeyevich

Moscow

On 15/02/2109 the applicant, at the material time the editor-in-chief of the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, was interviewed during a live broadcast on the radio station Echo Moskvy, in which he expressed his views on various current social and political issues. In particular, he commented on the speech of Mrs Y., a member of the State Duma, as follows "She spoke in the Duma and said about pensioners: ‘If you don’t like the amount of your pension, don’t whine. Get out of the comfort zone’”. Following civil proceedings brought by Mrs Y., the applicant was found liable under Article 152 of the Civil Code for tarnishing the claimant’s honour and dignity.

29/12/2020, Supreme Court of Russia (notified on 14/01/2021)

Order to rebut the disputed comment.

Award of RUB 300 to Ms. Y. for legal costs

failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute

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

53086/21

07/10/2021

Yevgeniya Markovna ALBATS

1958

OOO NOVYYE VREMENA

2013

Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich

Moscow

The applicant company is the founder and publisher of the online media outlet The New Times, of which the first applicant is the editor-in-chief. On 19/11/2020 The New Times published an article on its website concerning the persecution of various groups by the Russian authorities, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which had been declared an “extremist organisation”.

On 18/01/2021 the Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) charged both the applicant company and the first applicant with an offence under Article 13.15(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) for having written about the Jehovah’s Witnesses without the required reference to their status of an “extremist organisation”. After an administrative trial they were found guilty as charged.

08/04/2021, Tverskoy District Court (the applicant company);

16/04/2021, Tverskoy District Court (the first applicant)

Fine of RUB 40,000 (the applicant company) and of RUB 4,000 (the first applicant)

excessively broad definition of extremism; 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

Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158‑59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), 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,

to each of the applicants

57924/21

13/11/2021

Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV

1975

Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich

Kazan

The applicant is the editor-in-chief of the online media outlet MediaZona. On 11/01/2021 the MediaZona reported online on a court hearing involving an alleged member of the Artpodgotovka movement, which had been declared an “extremist organisation”.

On 01/03/2021 the Russian telecommunications regulator (Roskomnadzor) charged the applicant with an offence under Article 13.15(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) for having disseminated the information about the Artpodgotovka movement without the required reference to its status of an “extremist organisation”. After an administrative trial he was found guilty as charged.

19/05/2021, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow

Fine of RUB 4,000

excessively broad definition of extremism; 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

Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158‑59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), 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)

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings -

The applicant did not submit the just satisfaction claims. Accordingly, the Court does not make any award

4045/22

12/12/2021

Roman Aleksandrovich ANIN

1986

Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich

Moscow

In 2016 the applicant published in the Novaya Gazeta newspaper an article about Ms O.S., the then wife of the CEO of Rosneft, a Russian State-owned oil exporter corporation. On 20/09/2016 a criminal investigation was opened into the alleged breach of Ms O.S.’s privacy. It was suspended in April 2017 and resumed in March 2021. On 07/04/2021 a court search warrant was issued in respect of the applicant’s flat. On 09/04/2021 the search was conducted, and the applicant’s documents, laptops, smartphones, USB and hard drives were seized. The applicant’s appeal against the search warrant was dismissed.

21/06/2021, Moscow City Court

Search and seizure of documents, laptops, smartphones, USB and hard drives

unjustified search of a journalist’s home and seizure of electronic devices in absence of procedural safeguards against interference with confidentiality of journalistic sources

Sergey Sorokin v. Russia, no. 52808/09, §§ 37-65, 30 August 2022 (unjustified search of a journalist’s home and seizure of electronic devices in absence of procedural safeguards against interference with confidentiality of journalistic sources)

0,

in view of the cumulative award made to the applicant in applications nos. 61391/11 and 35034/13

28925/22

26/05/2022

(3 applicants)

Roman Sergeyevich BADANIN

1976

Mikhail Arkadyevich RUBIN

1988

Mariya Viktorovna ZHOLOBOVA

1988

Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich

Moscow

In 2017 the applicants, then journalists at the online television channel TV Rain, made a documentary alleging that President Putin had close links with Mr T., a member of organised crime. The film was broadcasted on TV Rain.

On 14/11/2017 a criminal investigation was opened against the three applicants under Art. 128.1 § 5 of the Criminal Code (aggravated libel). On 29/09/2020 the criminal case was closed due to the statute of limitations. On 28/06/2021 the investigation was resumed.

On 29/06/2021 an investigator drew up orders to urgently search the flats of the applicants. No judicial authorisation was sought on account of emergency. On the same day all their flats were searched, and the applicants’ documents, laptops, smartphones, USB and hard drives seized. The applicants appealed against the search warrants but to no avail.

14/12/2021, St Petersburg City Court (Mr Badanin)

14/12/2021, St Petersburg City Court (Ms Zholobova);

08/12/2021 and 14/12/2021, St Petersburg City Court (Mr Rubin)

Search and seizure of documents, laptops, smartphones, USB and hard drives

unjustified search of a journalist’s home and seizure of electronic devices in absence of procedural safeguards against interference with confidentiality of journalistic sources

Sergey Sorokin v. Russia, no. 52808/09, §§ 37-65, 30 August 2022 (unjustified search of a journalist’s home and seizure of electronic devices in absence of procedural safeguards against interference with confidentiality of journalistic sources)

7,500,

to each of the applicants