The judgment concerns the prosecution of media organizations and individuals in Russia for expressing views critical of Russia’s military actions in Ukraine or disseminating information that diverged from official accounts. The Court examined 161 applications from media outlets and individuals who faced various forms of sanctions, including fines, detention, and closure of media organizations, for their anti-war expressions.The Court found that Russia violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) by imposing disproportionate restrictions on peaceful anti-war protests, factual reporting on events in Ukraine, and expressions of support for Ukraine. The measures included criminal prosecution, administrative fines, pre-trial detention, and closure of independent media outlets. The Court also found violations of Articles 3, 5, 8, and 34 of the Convention in relation to specific aspects of the cases.The judgment establishes several key principles regarding freedom of expression during wartime:
- Even in situations of armed conflict, there must be room for public debate and dissenting views
- Peaceful anti-war expressions, including use of terms like ‘war’ instead of official terminology, cannot be legitimately restricted
- Media must be free to report facts from diverse sources, not just official accounts
- Expression of solidarity with Ukraine or display of Ukrainian symbols constitutes protected speech
- Historical comparisons and creative forms of protest, including satire, deserve protection
The Court emphasized that the restrictions were part of a broader campaign to suppress dissent regarding military action in Ukraine, fostering an environment of self-censorship through exceptionally severe penalties. The Court ordered Russia to pay compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
