1488/16;10325/18;16095/18;29965/18;44815/18;52959/18;56827/18

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1488/16 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 September 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sokolov 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 28 August 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 APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 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). ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION No. 1488/16 IN THE PART LODGED BY mr bARABASH, mr mUKHIN AND mr pARFENOV 7.  The Court observes that application no. 1488/16 was lodged by four applicants, Mr Barabash, Mr Mukhin, Mr Parfenov and Mr Sokolov. As regards the complaints of the three applicants, Mr Barabash, Mr Mukhin and Mr Parfenov, the Court finds in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto and that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met. Accordingly, the part of application no. 1488/16 insofar as it concerns the three applicants, Mr Barabash, Mr Mukhin and Mr Parfenov, must be declared inadmissible. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 8.  The remaining 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. 9.  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 caselaw, 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). In cases relating to Article 10 of the Convention, exceptions under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention must be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly. The balancing exercise has to be carried out by the national courts in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case‑law and the courts must apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention and must base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia, no. 44561/11, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021). 10.  In the leading cases of RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta (cited above), Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia (nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, 7 June 2022), Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia (no. 42168/06, 3 October 2017), OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia (nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, 23 June 2020) and Savva Terentyev v. Russia (no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 11.  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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, 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 and/or to base their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts. 12.  These complaints for the remaining applicants as described in the appended table are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 13.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012 (concerning the unreasonably long pre-trial detention and defects in the proceedings for review of detention matters), Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016 (concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the proceedings), and Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, 13 February 2018 (concerning administrative arrest and detention). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 14.  In application no. 1488/16 the applicant, Mr Sokolov, also raised additional complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised in the present application and thus does not find it necessary to examine the remaining complaints.          APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Taganrog LRO and Others, cited above; RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v, cited above; OOO Flavus and Others, also cited above), 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 of Mr Barabash, Mr Mukhin and Mr Parfenov in application no. 1488/16 inadmissible, finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention by Mr Sokolov in application no. 1488/16 and finds the remainder of the applications admissible; 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 as regards the other complaints raised under 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 18 September 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     1488/16 29/12/2015 (4 applicants) Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SOKOLOV   *******     Kirill Vladimirovich BARABASH   Yuriy Ignatyevich MUKHIN   Valeriy Nikolayevich PARFENOV   Visentin Mjriana Lainate The first applicant Mr Sokolov was convicted of extremism, because he participated in a public association, which promoted the idea of and attempted to organise a referendum on amendments to the Constitution.     Moscow City Court, 21/12/2017 4 years’ imprisonment Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued; Excessively broad interpretation of the notion 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), Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism) Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention of Mr Sokolov- Detention order of 29/07/2015 reviewed on 19/08/2015 (over 20 days) Detention order of 21/09/2015 reviewed on 19/10/2015 (over 20 days),   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention of Mr Sokolov - 28/07/2015-29/12/2015 (time of lodging of the complaint) - the length of detention is not justified in the view of the reasons advanced; no alternatives to the detention having been considered 13,000, to Mr Sokolov         10325/18 22/02/2018 Roman Gennadyevich GRISHIN   Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow The applicant was convicted of using his social media profile for incitement of hatred by re-posting of a video material critical of the Russian authorities’ and Orthodox Church’s supports of separatism in Ukraine. Kaluga Regional Court, 22/08/2017 320 hours of compulsory works replaced with 40 days of colony Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued 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), Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)   10,000     16095/18 28/03/2018 Dmitriy Igorevich CHERNOMORCHENKO       The web-portal ‘The Voice of Islam’ managed by the applicant was blocked on 11/02/2016 following the demand of the Prosecutor General’s Office due to publication of extremist material. The applicant was not made aware of which materials were considered extremist until 15/06/2016, after taking down of the material the access to the web-portal was restored on 07/07/2016. Supreme Court of Russia, 29/09/2017   Overbroad restriction; Blocking of the web-portal without providing information on the specific content considered illegal 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), OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, 23 June 2020 (blocking of websites based on unforeseeable provisions of domestic law)   10,000     29965/18 30/05/2018 Natalya Olegovna TELEGINA   Bushmakov Aleksey Vladimirovich Yekaterinburg The applicant was convicted of using her social media profile to incite hatred against Orthodox Christians by posting images and statements critical of them and the Orthodox Church. Altay Regional Court, 08/02/2018 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia on 24/12/2018) 2 years’ imprisonment suspended / sanction annulled on 09/10/2018 due to the applicant’s good behaviour Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued; Excessively broad interpretation of the notion 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), Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 158-59, 7 June 2022 (excessively broad definition of extremism), Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)   10,000     44815/18 06/09/2018 Vladimir Yuryevich SHIPITSYN   Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Saint-Barthélemy-d’Anjou The applicant was convicted of waving a flag similar to the one of an extremist organisation at a public assembly. St Petersburg City Court, 06/03/2018 5 days’ administrative detention Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued 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,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 25-26/02/2018 - taking to the police station for the purpose of compiling an administrative offence report and detention there until trial 5,000     52959/18 23/10/2018 Olga Alekseyevna NIKITOVA   Tszen Matvey Nikolayevich Moscow The applicant was convicted of dissemination of materials inciting enmity and hatred towards military and civil authorities of Russia and casting doubt on the defence capabilities of the military forces. Moscow City Court, 24/04/2018 1 year imprisonment (probation) Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued 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), Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech), Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code)   10,000     56827/18 24/11/2018 Vladimir Aleksandrovich TIMOSHENKO   Gaynutdinov Damir Ravilevich Sofia, Bulgaria The applicant was convicted for authoring and dissemination online of a public statement calling for "actions" to be taken against "corrupt-punitive apparatus", which was considered to imply the Russian authorities. St Petersburg City Court, 25/05/2018 2 years’ imprisonment Measure disproportionate to the aim pursued Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017 (hate speech, conviction under Article 282 of the Criminal Code), 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), Savva Terentyev v. Russia, no. 10692/09, 28 August 2018 (excessive broad domestic provisions on hate speech)   10,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.