PRYANISHNIKOV v. RUSSIA - 25047/05 (Judgment : Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section) [2019] ECHR 614 (10 September 2019)

PRYANISHNIKOV v. RUSSIA - 25047/05 (Judgment : Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section) [2019] ECHR 614 (10 September 2019)

The refusal to grant a film reproduction licence constituted an interference with the applicant's freedom of expression. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims, but domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the suspicion of pornography, relied on assumptions,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ECHR 614
Parties
Applicant: Sergey Viktorovich Pryanishnikov; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 found; application admissible; claim for just satisfaction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Licensing of Film Reproduction, Protection of Children, Pornography Regulation
Human Rights Administrative Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Licensing of Film Reproduction Protection of Children Pornography Regulation

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sergey Viktorovich Pryanishnikov

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to grant a film reproduction licence violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to grant a film reproduction licence constituted an interference with the applicant's freedom of expression. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims, but domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the suspicion of pornography, relied on assumptions, and did not perform a balancing exercise between freedom of expression and protection of morals/rights of others. The restriction was disproportionate and unjustified, violating Article 10.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 found; application admissible; claim for just satisfaction dismissed.

Orders

  • Declares the application admissible.
  • Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.