THIRD SECTION

CASE OF TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL - R v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 4775/20)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 May 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Transparency International - R v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 April 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 December 2019.

2.  The applicant organisation was represented by Mr G. Mashanov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant organisation’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant organisation complained of restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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 application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

7.  The applicant organisation complained under Article 10 of the Convention of various restrictions on its right to freedom of expression. In particular, it cited defamation proceedings instituted against it and the decisions of the domestic courts in that regard (for further details see appended table).

8.  As regards the complaint concerning examination of a defamation suit lodged against the applicant organisation, the Court observes that, in an earlier case concerning the judicial authorities’ failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute (see Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13 December 2016), it already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  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 in the instant case. Accordingly, the failure by the domestic courts to base their decisions, when examining the defamation claims against the applicant organisation, “on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts” and to adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons brings the Court to the conclusion that the interference complained of was not “necessary in a democratic society”.

10.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

11.  In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints concerning the refusal by the Ministry of the Justice of the Russian Federation to accredit the applicant organisation as an official anti-corruption expert (compare Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 74-83, 8 September 2020, concerning the examination of defamation claims in camera).

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  The applicant organisation claimed 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage, referring to its obligation to pay damages to Mr L., as per the judgment in the latter’s favour. In this connection, the Court observes that the applicant organisation submitted that Mr L. had not attempted to have the said judgment enforced and that the statutory three years’ period prescribed for such enforcement had expired. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant organisation remains under obligation to comply with the judgment debt. Accordingly, it does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged and therefore rejects that claim. The applicant organisation did not submit any claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court considers that there is no call to award any sum on that account.

14.  The applicant organisation also claimed RUB 83,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award 600 euros (EUR) under this head.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2. Declares the complaint concerning the examination of a defamation suit against the applicant organisation and the other complaints under well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and holds that there is no need to examine the remainder of the complaints under Article 10 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention stemming from the examination of the defamation suit against the applicant organisation and the resulting decisions of the domestic courts;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant organisation, within three months, EUR 600 (six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant organisation, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention

(various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression)