MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2024)1514/H46-34

5 December 2024

1514th meeting, 3-5 December 2024 (DH)   H46-34 Bryan and Others (Application No. 22515/14), Butkevich (Application No. 5865/07), Chemodurov group (Application No. 72683/01), Chirikov and Nekrasov group (Application No. 47942/17), Dzhavadov (Application No. 30160/04), Kazakov group (Application No. 1758/020, Kudeshkina (Application No. 29492/05), Obukhova (Application No. 34736/03), Saliyev (Application No. 35016/03), and Verzilov and Others (Application No. 25276/15) v. Russian Federation Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments   Reference documents CM/Notes/1514/H46-34

 

Decisions

The Deputies

1.         recalling that although the Russian Federation ceased to be a High Contracting Party to the Convention on 16 September 2022, it remains bound by obligations under the Convention, including to implement judgments of the Court, in accordance with Article 58 of the Convention; recalling further that the Committee of Ministers continues to supervise the execution of the judgments and friendly settlements concerned (Resolution of 22 March 2022 of the Court and Resolution CM/Res(2022)3);

2.         deeply deplored that the Russian authorities have ceased all communication with the Committee of Ministers concerning the execution of judgments, and welcomed the Rule 9 submissions by the applicants and NGOs, which constitute a vital source of information as regards the human rights situation in Russia, and encouraged them to continue; 

3.         recalled that these cases concern various violations of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to criticise politicians and to report on  public assemblies and court proceedings by journalists; to report crimes to competent authorities; to register and disseminate a newspaper; to highlight important public issues, including the environment, through artistic and other performances, without being attacked and arbitrarily arrested; and for judges to constructively criticise the judiciary;

As regards individual measures

4.         stressed the unconditional obligation of the authorities to pay just satisfaction in all cases, and the urgent need to lift the legislative and other obstacles blocking such payments, as well as to reopen and reconsider relevant cases in accordance with the requirements of the Convention;

5.         with regard to the case of Kudeshkina, recalled their previous decisions underlining that providing the applicant with appropriate redress is required to remove the chilling effect on judges’ freedom of expression;[1]

As regards general measures

6.         recalling that the possibility of expressing different views is at the very essence of pluralism, without which there is no “democratic society” (Obukhova, § 27), and taking into account recent reliable reports and alerts, including of the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation and of NGOs, deeply deplored further deterioration of the situation with the freedom of expression in the Russian Federation, notably the recent repressive practices based on laws using the vague definitions of
so-called “foreign agents”, “extremism,” “undesirable organisations”, “fake news about the war”, “discreditation of the army and authorities”, or “calls for sanctions” against the Russian Federation and its citizens;

7.         underlined that these repressive laws and practices run counter to the conclusions and spirit of the judgments under consideration, and that repealing them (and redressing the situation of all those convicted on the basis of these laws and practices in breach of their right to freedom of expression) appears to be a necessary prerequisite to any further, meaningful general measures in these cases; 

8.         underlined that in order to prevent violations similar to those found by the Court in these cases, the Russian authorities should in particular ensure that, as a rule,

·     journalists can report freely on public assemblies and court proceedings;

·     politicians can be criticised more than others, especially in political debates,

·     executive bodies do not bring defamation actions;  

·     value judgments are distinguished from statements of fact;

·     criminal prosecution for peaceful speech is excluded, and any non-criminal sanction has no chilling effect;

·     complaints to authorities about public officials are not punished;

·     newspapers are registered and circulated on the basis of a foreseeable interpretation of law; 

·     courts consider the aspect of freedom of expression in all disputes about discussions on matters of public interest; 

·     peaceful artistic and other expression drawing attention to matters of public concern, including environment, are properly protected against violence and arbitrary arrests;

·     activities of associations assisting the police in maintaining public order are adequately regulated.

9.         stressed that toachieve these goals, in addition to all the legislative reforms required, further measures will be necessary, such as guidance from the Supreme Court, Convention-compliant development of the judicial and prosecutorial practices as well as training and awareness-raising activities, to ensure a Convention-compliant application of the legislation.