The essence of the decision:
\nThe European Court of Human Rights examined multiple applications against Russia concerning the “foreign agent” legislation. The Court found that Russia’s practice of designating individuals and organizations as “foreign agents” violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 8 (right to private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court determined that the designation was stigmatizing, imposed burdensome requirements, and wasn’t necessary in a democratic society.<\/p>\n
Structure and main provisions:
\n1. The Court joined 32 applications due to similar subject matter
\n2. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases where violations occurred before Russia’s exit from the Council of Europe (September 16, 2022)
\n3. The Court found that the “foreign agent” designation:
\n– Was stigmatizing and misleading
\n– Imposed onerous requirements (mandatory labeling, restrictions on activities)
\n– Carried severe sanctions for non-compliance
\n– Lacked justification by “pressing social need”
\n4. The Court awarded each applicant \u20ac10,000 in damages and \u20ac250 for costs<\/p>\n
Key important provisions:
\n1. The Court emphasized that the “foreign agent” designation implied foreign control without evidence
\n2. The legislation violated both freedom of expression and right to private life
\n3. Russia’s exit from the Council of Europe doesn’t absolve it from implementing the Court’s judgments
\n4. The Court established uniform compensation for all applicants regardless of their status or circumstances
\n5. The decision applies to various categories of “foreign agents” – journalists, public figures, organizations, and media professionals<\/p>\n