KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 16435/10 (Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Third Section) [2020] ECHR 661 (06 October 2020)

KARASTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 16435/10 (Judgment : Remainder inadmissible : Third Section) [2020] ECHR 661 (06 October 2020)

The Court found that the prosecutor's discretion under anti-extremism legislation lacked foreseeability, clear criteria, and safeguards against arbitrariness, resulting in unlawful interference with the applicants' freedom of expression. The lack of judicial review and unjustified discontinuation of proceedings violated the applicants' right to access to court.

Citation
[2020] ECHR 661
Parties
First Applicant: Mr Vadim Yevgenyevich Karastelev; Second Applicant: Mrs Tamara Viktorovna Karasteleva; Third Applicant: Novorossiysk Committee for Human Rights; Respondent: Russian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
06 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1 found
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Anti Extremism Legislation, Judicial Review, Access to Court
Human Rights Constitutional Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Anti Extremism Legislation Judicial Review Access to Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Vadim Yevgenyevich Karastelev

First Applicant

Mrs Tamara Viktorovna Karasteleva

Second Applicant

Novorossiysk Committee for Human Rights

Third Applicant

Russian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecutor's warnings, cautions, and orders under anti-extremism legislation violated Article 10 (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the discontinuation of proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 (access to court)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the prosecutor's discretion under anti-extremism legislation lacked foreseeability, clear criteria, and safeguards against arbitrariness, resulting in unlawful interference with the applicants' freedom of expression. The lack of judicial review and unjustified discontinuation of proceedings violated the applicants' right to access to court.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 and Article 6 § 1 found

Orders

  • The judgment will become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.
  • The Russian Federation is to ensure compliance with the judgment and provide appropriate remedies.