Published on 5 February 2024

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 27119/18 Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 16 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case mainly concerns Mr Aleksey Navalnyy’s apprehension and detention upon returning to Russia from Germany on 17 January 2021 and his imprisonment resulting from a conviction that the Court had previously found to be in violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Navalnyye v. Russia , no. 101/15, 17 October 2017). The relevant facts have been partially summarised in the communicated case Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 4743/21). Other applications pertain to criminal libel proceedings and several defamation cases against Mr Navalnyy for his publications. The complaints for each application are described in the Appendix.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty during the period between 17 January and 20 February 2021 fall within any sub-paragraph of this provision? Has the applicant’s detention after 20 February 2021 been compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Were the detention proceedings at the Khimkinskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region, in particular regarding the hearing on 18 January 2021, compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning the revocation of his parole, in libel criminal proceedings and in defamation proceedings, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention?

4. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?

5. Were the restrictions imposed by the State, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

Facts

Complaints

1.

27119/18

07/05/2018

(first defamation case, final decision 15/11/2017)

05/09/2018

(second defamation case, final decision 23/04/2018)

Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY 1976 Melekhovo Russian

Vyacheslav Ilyich GIMADI

On 2 March 2017 Mr Navalnyy and his team released a documentary titled “ He is not Dimon to you ” on YouTube. The film claimed that the then Prime Minister of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, had used charities and shell companies to amass a collection of luxuries. It also suggested that a Russian billionaire, Alisher Usmanov, had transferred the ownership of a luxurious mansion and land to a charity foundation run by Mr Medvedev’s former classmate, alleging this transfer as a bribe and calling for an investigation. Mr Usmanov sued Mr Navalnyy over this documentary, seeking its removal and a retraction. On 31 May 2018 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow ruled in favour of Mr Usmanov, determining that the statements in the documentary constituted statements of facts rather than value judgments, which had damaged his reputation. The judgment was upheld on appeal, with the final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 15 November 2017.

In a separate defamation case, a charity foundation, which had allegedly received luxury assets from Mr Usmanov, filed a lawsuit. On 19 September 2017 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow ruled in favour of the foundation. The court found that the allegations made by the applicant about the foundation’s participation in illegal and criminal activities were presented as statements of facts rather than as expressions of the applicant’s value judgments or personal opinions. As a result, the court ordered the retraction and removal of specific sections of the documentary that pertained to the foundation. The judgment was upheld on appeal, with the final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 23 April 2018.

Art. 10 – freedom of expression – the domestic courts’ judgments in both defamation cases amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression;

Art. 6 § 1 – fair trial – the applicant was unable to present evidence in his defence as all his motions were rejected by the domestic courts in the first set of defamation proceedings, in breach of fair trial guarantees;

Art. 18 – in conjunction with Art. 10 – the underlying motive behind the defamation cases was to facilitate the removal of the documentary about corruption from YouTube.

2.

46413/20

25/09/2020

Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY 1976 Melekhovo Russian

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GOLOVACH

In August 2018, the applicant published an article on his website concerning alleged corruption in Russia, which included references to the business operations of a private entity, Myasokombinat “Druzhba narodov” LLC. The article claimed that this entity, under a state contract with the National Guard of Russia for product supply, had provided lower quality goods at higher prices compared to previous suppliers, and included a comparison of past and present prices. Subsequently, the Myasokombinat initiated defamation proceedings against the applicant in the commercial court, contending that the assertions made in the article were inaccurate. On 12 February 2019 the Moscow Commercial Court ruled in favour of the claimant, determining that the statements in the article constituted statements of facts rather than value judgments, which had damaged the claimant’s reputation. This judgment was upheld through three levels of judicial review, culminating in a final judgment by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 27 March 2020.

Art. 10 – freedom of expression – the domestic courts’ judgments in the defamation case amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression;

Art. 6 § 1 – fair trial – the applicant was unable to present evidence in his defence as his motions were rejected by the domestic courts, in breach of fair trial guarantees;

Art. 18 – in conjunction with Art. 10 – the underlying motive behind the defamation case was to facilitate the removal of the article about corruption in Russia.

3.

29451/21

04/06/2021

Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY 1976 Melekhovo Russian

Vyacheslav Ilyich GIMADI

In July 2019, the applicant posted an article on his website regarding the alleged undisclosed wealth of Mr M., a notable figure in the All-Russian Political Party “United Russia” and a deputy of the Moscow City Duma. The publication alleged that Mr M. owned a series of hotels in Austria that were not reported in Russia, engaged in business activities contrary to the restrictions placed on deputies, and had not declared a considerable sum of money. In response, Mr M. initiated defamation proceedings, arguing that the statements made in the article were not factual. On 5 November 2019 the Simonovskiy District Court of Russia partially ruled in favour of Mr M., ordering the removal and retraction of specific parts of the article which the court found to be inaccurate. This judgment was subsequently upheld on appeal, with the final decision taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 4 December 2020.

Art. 10 – freedom of expression – the domestic courts’ judgments in both defamation cases amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression.

4.

37083/21

20/07/2021

Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY 1976 Melekhovo Russian

Olga Olegovna MIKHAYLOVA

By the judgment of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow dated 30 December 2014, the applicant along with his brother was found guilty of money laundering and defrauding two companies. He received a suspended sentence of 3,5 years with 5-year’s parole, which remained effective despite the Court’s findings of a violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Navalnyye v. Russia , no. 101/15, 17 October 2017).

On 20 August 2020, the applicant suffered acute malaise and lost consciousness during a domestic flight from Tomsk to Moscow, leading to an emergency landing in Omsk. He was hospitalized in a coma and put on life support. Subsequently, on 22 August 2020, he was transferred to the Charité University Medical Centre in Berlin for further treatment, where he stayed until 23 September 2020, followed by outpatient treatment until 15 January 2021. The applicant notified the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN) of his treatment in Germany on 23 November 2020, providing his address in Berlin and a certificate from the Charité hospital. However, on 28 December 2020, the FSIN issued a public statement about the applicant’s failure to comply with the regular check-ins required for his parole, indicating a possibility of parole revocation. On 29 December 2020 FSIN put the applicant on the “wanted” list, and the Investigation Committee of Russia charged him with another criminal offense related to misappropriation of donations to his foundation. The applicant returned to Russia on 17 January 2021, and was immediately arrested at the Sheremetyevo airport. The next day, the Khimkinskiy Town Court ordered his detention pending the proceedings for the enforcement of his suspended criminal sentence. On 2 February 2021, the applicant’s parole was revoked by the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow, and he was sentenced to two and a half years in a correctional colony. On 20 February 2021 the Moscow City Court upheld this decision on appeal.

Art. 5 § 1 – unlawful deprivation of liberty between 17 January 2021 and 20 February 2021; unlawful detention after 20 February 2021 on account of the execution of sentence arising from a criminal conviction that was in breach of the applicant’s rights under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention;

Art. 5 § 3 – lack of justification for the applicant’s pre-trial detention pending the decision on the conversion of parole to imprisonment;

Art. 5 § 4 – the lack of procedural guarantees in the detention proceedings at the Khimkinskiy Town Court, namely the court was not impartial; the principle of adversarial procedure and equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution was breached; the lack of private communication with the applicant’s lawyers; the press was not allowed to attend the hearing;

Art. 6 § 1 – the lack of a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning revocation of the applicant’s parole, namely the courts dismissed his arguments and he was unable to

confer privately with his counsels;

Art. 18 – in conjunction with Art. 5 and Art. 6 § 1 – the ulterior purpose of the applicant’s arrest, detention and revocation of his parole was to penalize him for his opposition activities.

5.

34902/22

07/07/2022

Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY 1976 Melekhovo Russian

Olga Olegovna MIKHAYLOVA

In June 2020, the applicant made a public statement on Twitter and his Telegram channel about certain individuals featured in a video promoting amendments to the Russian Constitution. The applicant’s comment was: “Oh, here they are, darlings. I must admit that so far the team of corrupt stooges looks rather weak. Look at them: this is a disgrace to the country. People with no conscience. Traitors.” One of the individuals in the video, Russian World War II veteran Mr. A., felt that this statement tarnished his reputation and inflicted moral harm. Consequently, libel charges were brought against the applicant. On 20 February 2021 the applicant was found guilty of libel and fined 850,000 Russian roubles. This criminal conviction was subsequently upheld on all levels of judicial review, with the final decision taken on 17 March 2022 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Art. 10 – freedom of expression – criminal conviction for libel amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression;

Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 – fair trial – the applicant was unable to argue his case on an equal footing with the prosecution, in particular, because his questions to prosecution witnesses and the victim were dismissed, and he lacked the opportunity for confidential communication with his legal counsels;

Art. 18 – in conjunction with Art. 10 and Art. 6 – the underlying motive behind the libel case was to undermine the credibility of the applicant due to his anti-corruption investigations.