10 Feb A criminal conviction for violating a public order because of expressing a political opinion – was not in accordance with the Convention

In the case of Karuyev v. Russia (application no. 4161/13, 18.01.2022) the European Court of Human Rights held, by 6 votes to 1, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for spitting on a portrait of Russian President Putin in 2012, in the wake of his re-election. He had been convicted of a breach of public order and sentenced to 15 days of detention.

The Government argued, on the one hand, that spitting on the portrait of the President of Russia had been a form of immoral conduct and that the applicant’s conviction had been necessary for the prevention of disorder.

The Court considered, on the other hand, that the act of spitting on the portrait of a politician in the wake of his re-election was an expression of political opinion. In that context, the applicant’s conviction and resulting 15 days of detention had amounted to an interference with his freedom of expression.

Furthermore, the Court was not satisfied that the elements of an offence under Article 20.1 § 1, the provision under which the applicant had been prosecuted, had been made out. The main element “breach of public order manifesting a flagrant disrespect for society” had to be accompanied by proof of using obscene language, harassment or destruction or damage of property. However, the domestic authorities had produced no evidence that the performance had caused a public disturbance or provoked outrage by passers-by. On the facts, the performance in which the applicant had participated had essentially been peaceful. Indeed, police officers present during the performance had not seen any reason to intervene and the applicant had been arrested only four hours later.

Therefore, the applicant’s prosecution had not had a clear and foreseeable basis in domestic law and his conviction had not been “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the European Convention. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 10.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights