4128/18;4618/20;34658/20;36504/21;55354/22

THIRD SECTION CASE OF MATVEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 4128/18 and 4 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 Matveyev 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 (“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 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). Ms Navalnaya’s standing 7.  The Court has taken note of Ms Yulia Navalnaya’s wish to pursue the complaints lodged by her late husband, Mr A. Navalnyy (application no. 36504/21), and recognises her standing for that purpose (see López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, §§ 72‑73, 17 October 2019). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 8.  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. 9.  In the leading cases cited in the appendix, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  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 the sums indicated in the appended table 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; Holds that Ms Yulia Navalnaya has standing to continue the present proceedings in her late husband’s stead in application no. 36504/21; Declares 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 (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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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) 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 Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     4128/18 18/12/2017 Mikhail Nikolayevich MATVEYEV   Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan On 11 and 14 December 2015 the applicant, a member of the Samara Regional Duma, published two articles on his blog in which he criticised the holding of a private birthday celebration by the Mayor of the City of Samara, F., claiming that it was too expensive and speculating about the origin of the funds used to pay for it. In a passage of the article published on 14 December 2015, the applicant described the celebration as "a stupid and unjustifiable act that caused enormous damage to the city’s reputation". Following a civil action brought by F., the applicant was found liable for defamation under Article 152 of the Civil Code for the offensive nature of the contested passage. 20/06/2017 Supreme Court of Russia award of RUB 50,000 to F. as compensation for moral damage. No assessment of whether the value judgement had sufficient factual basis or whether it remained within the acceptable degree of stylistic exaggeration 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     4618/20 27/12/2019  OOO SEM VERSHIN   Ramil Radmirovich RAKHMATOV   Shatskikh Olga Vitalyevna Voronezh The applicant company is the owner of the media outlet proufu.ru, and the second applicant is the author of an article published on that outlet on 29/04/2018. The article commented on a criminal complaint filed by a local NGO requesting the opening of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities in the operation of a private charitable foundation managed by Kh., the wife of the Governor of the Republic of Bashkortostan. Following a civil action brought by Kh., the applicant company and the applicant were held liable for defamation under Article 152 of the Civil Code in respect of two passages in the contested article (a quotation from the above-mentioned complaint and the author’s opinion on the management of the foundation). 03/07/2019 Supreme Court of Russia 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 (first passage); lack of distinction between statements of facts and value judgments (second passage)   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     34658/20 30/06/2020 BLAGOTVORITELNYY FOND POMOSHCHI OSUZHDENNYM I IKH SEMYAM     Podoplelova Olga Germanovna Moscow Following a civil action for defamation brought by correctional facility no. IK-13 in the Sverdlovsk Region, the applicant - an NGO dedicated to the protection of prisoners’ rights - was held liable for publishing an article which, in certain passages relating to alleged corruption practices in the facility, damaged the applicant’s "business reputation". 30/09/2019 Supreme Court of Russia 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) 7,500     36504/21 05/07/2021 Lyubov Eduardovna SOBOL   Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY Died in 2024   Heir: Yuliya Navalnaya   Gimadi Vyacheslav Ilyich Vilnius On 18 February 2019 the applicants published on various web platforms (the applicants’ social media accounts, Youtube, the second applicant’s personal website, the website of the NGO of which the applicants were both members) an article and a video interview - authored by the first applicant - with Ms Sh., a former employee of a private commercial company providing catering services in municipal kindergartens and schools in Moscow. Ms Sh. described various irregularities in the food supply and claimed that the poor quality of food could have caused several cases of food poisoning among children. Following a civil action brought by the above-mentioned commercial company, the applicants (together with Ms Sh. and the NGO to which the two applicants belonged) were held liable for defamation under Article 152 of the Civil Code for damaging business reputation of the company. 01/02/2021, Supreme Court of Russia damages (loss of profit) in the amount of RUB 29,201,487 to be paid by each of the applicants; an order to withdraw the contested publication and to publish a rebuttal. failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute; extremely high award, excessive in a defamation case 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), Rashkin v. Russia, no. 69575/10, 7 July 2020 (extremely high award, excessive in a defamation case) 7,500, to Ms L. Sobol;   7,500, to Mr Navalnyy, to be paid to Ms Y. Navalnaya     55354/22 05/11/2022 Yevgeniy Vadimovich ROYZMAN   Fedotova Yuliya Yekaterinburg In two sets of administrative proceedings, the applicant, a well-known public figure, was found guilty of i) "publicly discrediting the use of the Russian armed forces for the maintenance of international peace and security" (Article 20.3.3 of the CAO) for a post published on Twitter and Telegram on 8 March 2002, in which the applicant criticised the Russian military aggression against Ukraine; ii) "disseminating in information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, of information, expressed in an indecent manner offending human dignity and public morals, which shows clear disrespect for society, the state, official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, or bodies exercising state power in the Russian Federation" (Art. 20.1 § 3 of the CAO), for a post published on Instagram on 12 April 2022, in which the applicant commented, using obscene language, on a statement by the Russian Foreign Minister on the "military operation" in Ukraine. i) 06/07/2022, Sverdlovsk Regional Court ii) 03/08/2022, Sverdlovsk Regional Court i) fine of RUB 50,000       ii) fine of RUB 85,000 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 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     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.