The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Kartyzhev and Others v. Russia*, concerning 16 applications related to restrictions on freedom of expression. The applicants complained about being convicted under Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences for expressing disrespect towards the President of Russia, State and municipal officials, and the general public. The ECHR found that these convictions violated Article 10 of the Convention, which protects freedom of expression. The Court emphasized that political speech, including criticism of the head of State, enjoys a high level of protection and that politicians should be more tolerant of criticism than private individuals. The ECHR also found violations of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention in some cases, related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings. The Court awarded the applicants between EUR 10,000 and EUR 13,000 each in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
The decision begins by outlining the procedure, the facts of the case, and the legal framework. It then addresses the joinder of the applications and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction, noting that the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention. The judgment also addresses the issue of procedural succession in one application following the death of the original applicant. The core of the decision focuses on the alleged violation of Article 10, where the Court analyzes the applicants’ complaints about restrictions on their freedom of expression. Additionally, the decision addresses other alleged violations under well-established case-law, specifically concerning Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention. Finally, the judgment outlines the application of Article 41, which deals with just satisfaction, and specifies the amounts to be awarded to the applicants.
The main provisions of this decision highlight the importance of protecting freedom of expression, especially in the context of political debate and criticism of public officials. The ECHR reiterated that satire and provocative speech are legitimate forms of expression and that criminal sanctions for such expression can have a chilling effect on public discourse. The decision also underscores the need for fair and impartial legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving administrative offences. The judgment clarifies that even after Russia’s departure from the Convention, the ECHR retains jurisdiction over cases concerning events that occurred before September 16, 2022. **** This decision may be important for Ukrainians, as it concerns freedom of expression and criticism of political leaders, which are relevant in the context of the ongoing conflict and political situation in Ukraine.
