YEFIMOV AND YOUTH HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP v RUSSIA

Application Numbers 12385/15 and 51619/15 European Court of Human Rights [Judgment delivered in French] The first applicant was the founder and director of the applicant association. In 2011, he posted a short note on the applicant association’s website concerning about the Russian Orthodox Church. He was placed on the list of terrorist and extremists, prosecuted for hate […]

STOMAKHIN v RUSSIA

Application Number 52273/07 European Court of Human Rights  The case concerned the applicant’s conviction and sentence to five years in jail for newsletter articles he had written on the armed conflict in Chechnya. The national courts held that these articles had justified terrorism and violence and incited hatred. The ECtHR found that there was a […]

IBRAGIM IBRAGIMOV AND OTHERS v RUSSIA

Applications Numbers 1413/08 and 28621/11 European Court of Human Rights The case involved the decision of the Contracting Party to declare Said Nrusi’s book extremist literature which resulted in a ban on its publication and distribution and the consequent seizure of the undistributed copies (see paragraph 42 above). The Court found that, since these books depicted a moderate, non-violent, understanding […]

PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA

Application Number 35222/04 European Court of Human Rights The applicant published articles in his newspapers calling for, inter alia, the exclusion of Jews from social life. He was charged with publicly inciting ethnic, racial and religious hatred. The ECtHR found that the speech fell outside the scope of Convention protection. Link: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-79619%22]} Theme(s): Anti-Semitism Date: […]

ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

Application Number 4439/11 European Court of Human Rights [Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending] Application by journalist/politician regarding criminal conviction and ban on journalistic activities for statements made against non-Russians referring to them as, inter alia, criminals (with no calls for violence). Court found no violation of Article 10 due to the damaging […]