THIRD SECTION
CASE OF STOMAKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 5804/15 and 8 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 July 2025
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stomakhin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. The applicant company in application no. 48932/19, also raised a complaint under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction
6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention. 8. The Court has previously stated that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to Article 10 § 2, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society” (see, among the recent authorities, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015; Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 87, ECHR 2015; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016). Moreover, the Court reiterates the general principles concerning various issues under Article 10 established in its case law, in particular, as to hate speech and extremist activities (see Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, §§ 90-101, 3 October 2017, and Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 92, 96 and 113, 9 May 2018), blocking of websites (see Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, no. 10795/14, §§ 33 and 37, 23 June 2020, and OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, § 28, 23 June 2020), and disrespect for the authorities and State officials (see Karuyev v. Russia, no. 4161/13, §§ 17-19, 18 January 2022). 9. In the above leading cases the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases (see Dmitriyevskiy, cited above, § 119; OOO Flavus and Others, cited above, § 45; and Karuyev, cited above, § 26). 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. The Court considers that in the instant case the Russian authorities had failed to carry out a Convention-compliant balancing exercise in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case‑law and to apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention. 11. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. The applicant company in application no. 48932/19 submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Vladimir Kharitonov, cited above, § 56, as regards the lack of remedy to complain about blocking of a website. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, § 300, 7 June 2022, and Matveyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 4128/18 and 4 others, § 11, 6 February 2025), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Outcome for Article 13: violation