CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE PAVLI

1. The Court has found a violation of the applicant’s Article 10 rights on the ground that the interference was not “prescribed by law”. While I agree with that conclusion, I regret that the Chamber did not go on to consider the question of necessity in a democratic society, which in my view would have been justified by compelling reasons in this case.

2. It is an established principle of our jurisprudence that symbolic or other speech that may be offensive to senior political figures, including heads of State, is protected by Article 10 of the Convention (see in particular Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain , nos. 51168/15 and 51186/15, 13 March 2018, which involved the burning of a large, upside-down portrait of the Spanish royal couple during an anti-monarchist protest against their official visit to Girona; and Eon v. France , no. 26118/10, 14 March 2013, involving an applicant who was fined thirty euros for holding up an insulting and slightly obscene sign during a rally attended by the incumbent French president).

3. The current applicant, in contrast, was given a 15-day prison sentence for spitting at a photograph of the Russian president-elect, as part of a political street performance held on the eve of the presidential inauguration. Unlike in the Spanish and French cases cited above, the president-elect was nowhere in the vicinity. There is no indication that the largely satirical protest attracted a large audience or that it led to any breach of public order; in fact, the police did not intervene in any fashion during the event and the applicant was arrested several hours later at his home. This makes the offence, in my view, no more than a crime of political opinion.

4. It was not very long ago that people in the Eastern half of Europe were sent to labour camps simply for telling disrespectful jokes about Politburo members. One hopes that those days will be a thing of the past, considering the high price that has been paid for the right to disapprove of our political leaders. The Chamber has chosen today not to go beyond the more formal finding of a breach of the legality principle. I wish it had provided a more robust message and maintained the principled position of our case-law that, in a European democracy, political leaders are not immune to criticism or even ridicule – and respect for their person or office should not be founded on a threat of imprisonment.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DEDOV

I regret that I am unable to agree with the majority in finding a violation of Article 10 in the present case. I believe that any opinion should be expressed respectfully. This principle is universal and fundamental. It covers everything – from codes of judicial ethics to political debate – in order to prevent civil confrontation and to maintain a peaceful atmosphere in society. It applies to politics in general and to elections in particular. It applies to expression through conduct or through verbal value judgments.

I previously expressed my opinion in the case of Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary (no. 201/17, 20 January 2020), where I referred to the relevant case-law of the Court. The present case is again about showing disrespect for the democratic decision-making process in an insulting manner close to hate speech, so the authorities’ reaction was lawful, adequate and foreseeable by the applicant.

In my view it was not just a small political performance (due to an allegedly limited number of observers in the street), because if such a performance is filmed and disseminated via the Internet and social media, in the digital age it may become influential and thus powerful.

State officials, whether elected by the majority or appointed to public office, are human beings, and they deserve respectful treatment, even though members of society have the right to criticise them for their actions. Such officials are also members of society, and the Court, in acting as a guardian of responsible expression of opinion, preserves the fragile peace in society, especially between those in power and those in opposition, between the majority and the minority. The performance in question was disrespectful towards a State official, but every person – everybody’s personal dignity – deserves to be respected regardless of civil status. This is why Article 10 of the Convention protects the rights of others and allows a limitation of freedom of expression.