Novaya Gazeta and Others v Russia

The applications concerned criminal or administrative sanctions, or blocking orders, imposed on the Applicants because of their legitimate reporting about Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or statements advocating for peace and against the war. Each Applicant alleged that those sanctions violated Article 10.

The Court held that, in each case, the sanctions in question amounted to interferences with Article 10 rights which could not be justified as necessary in a democratic society. In particular:

• The Court concluded that the interferences did not pursue a legitimate aim; and instead, “[t]he mere fact that the expressions diverged from the official narrative was deemed sufficient to warrant prosecution”, while “the impugned measures were applied indiscriminately to a wide range of expressions, including peaceful anti-war protests, factual reporting on the events in Ukraine from non-official sources and statements of support for Ukraine”.
• The Court went on to hold that even if it could be assumed that the interferences pursued legitimate aims, it could not be said that they were necessary in a democratic society. It held that the prosecution of individuals for showing solidarity with Ukraine was “of particular concern”, and revealed “a policy aimed at suppressing and stigmatising any sentiment perceived as sympathetic to Ukraine, thereby imposing a one-sided Russia-dominated reading of the conflict”. The Court concluded that the Russian authorities “demonstrated a level of intolerance towards dissenting views that is fundamentally incompatible with the pluralism and open debate essential to a democratic society”.

The Court concluded:

In sum, the Court observes a systemic and widespread pattern of unjustified restrictions on expression related to the war in Ukraine. The measures imposed on the applicants extended well beyond addressing expressions that might genuinely threaten national security or public safety. Instead, they targeted a wide range of statement, from simple pacifist slogans to detailed reports on alleged war crimes, indicating a coordinated effort by the Russian authorities to suppress dissent rather than mitigate specific security threats. These restrictions appeared to be part of a broader campaign to stifle criticism or dissent concerning military actions in Ukraine.

Tim Otty KC and Tom Lowenthal (together with Drew Holiner of Monckton Chambers, instructed by Shaul Brazil of BCL Solicitors) represented one of the Applicants, Mr Gordon, a Ukrainian journalist convicted by a Moscow Court in absentia as a result of comments he made in an interview calling for armed resistance against the Russian invasion. The Court observed, in Mr Gordon’s case, that the Russian courts failed to consider whether he was expressing “emotional support for Ukraine’s legitimate right to self-defence under international law”, which revealed “that the prosecution was not directed at preventing genuine incitement to violence but rather at suppressing any criticism of Russian military actions, irrespective of its nature or context”.

The judgment may be found here.