Case Law, Strasbourg: Pryanishnikov v. Russia: Refusal to grant a licence for the reproduction of erotic material violated Article 10 – Argyro Chatzinikolaou

29 11 2019

In Pryanishnikov v Russia ([2019] ECHR 614), a case concerning the authorities’ refusal to grant the applicant a film reproduction license, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the right to freedom of expression, as the only reason advanced by the domestic courts for the refusal of the relevant license had been based on mere suspicions rather than findings of fact. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Mariya Alekhina v. Russia, Pussy Riot, the right to protest and to criticise the President, and the Patriarch – Dirk Voorhoof

18 09 2018

In its judgment of 17 July 2018 the ECtHR has found various violations of the rights of the members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot. The ECtHR found violations under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) ECHR (right to fair trial), in relation to the conditions of their transportation and detention in the courthouse, their pre-trial detention, the treatment during the court hearings (being exposed to public view in a glass dock surrounded by armed police), and restrictions to legal assistance. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: Novikova v Russia, One man banned, Russia’s treatment of solo protests scrutinised – Daniel Simons and Dirk Voorhoof

12 05 2016

State DumaOne-person protests are the only kind of demonstration Russian citizens are permitted to hold without giving prior notice to the authorities. The unanimous judgment in Novikova and others v. Russia stops short of questioning this low threshold, but finds Russia in violation of Article 10 over its excessive zeal in enforcing the notification requirement through arrests and fines. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Strasbourg: OOO “Vesti” v Russia, defamation judgment in favour of public official, no Article 10 violation – Hugh Tomlinson QC

31 05 2013

kirovIn a judgment handed down on 30 May 2013 in the case of OOO ‘Vesti’ v Russia ([2013] ECHR 485) the Court of Human Rights has held that an award of damages and an order for the publication of a retraction in a defamation claim brought by the Chief Federal Inspector of the Kirov Region did not breach the Article 10 rights of the newspaper or the journalist.  The interference was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, Court of Human Rights, OOO Ivpress v Russia, Defamation judgments breached Article 10

31 01 2013

4CC6B51C7B08CThe judgment in OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia (HEJUD [2013] ECHR 67) provides a useful reminder of the importance of distinguishing “value judgments” from “facts” in libel cases and of the importance of engaging in a specific consideration as to whether a publication contributes to a debate of general interest. The case also reminds us of the strict standards which are applied to sanctions against political speech. Violations of Article 10 were found in four linked cases in which the Russian domestic courts had entered defamation judgments against the Ivanovo-Press newspaper. Read the rest of this entry »