Conviction for spitting on a portrait of President Putin! Violation of freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Karuyev v. Russia 18.01.2022 (app. no. 4161/13)
SUMMARY
Spitting on a portrait of Russian President Putin. Criminal conviction. Freedom of expression.
The applicant, a Russian national, took part in an event aimed at expressing hope for an end to the rule of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In particular, protesters placed a portrait of the Russian president outside a public reception center in Cheboksary, placing two carnations in front to mark his years in power – reflecting the Russian tradition of leaving flowers on a gravestone next to the image of the dead.
The applicant spat out the portrait 30 minutes later. He was arrested four hours later and later convicted of disorderly conduct and remanded in custody for 15 days. The national courts essentially ruled that he had shown “blatant disrespect to society” by degrading “the honor and dignity of the popularly elected President of Russia”.
Based on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR, the applicant argued that his act was an expression of political opposition and that the real purpose of his conviction was to seek to suppress any criticism of President Putin.
The Government submitted that the applicant’s arrest constituted immoral conduct and that it was in the public interest.
The Court ruled that the applicant’s act of portraying a politician in the aftermath of his re-election was an expression of a political point of view. In that context, the applicant’s conviction as well as his 15-day detention amounted to an interference with his freedom of expression.
The ECtHR found a violation of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR) and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,400 in respect of costs and expenses.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Dmitriy Sergeyevich Karuyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1992 and lives in
Cheboksary (Russia).
On 6 May 2012, Mr Karuyev, with others, took part in a performance intended to express hope for
an end to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rule. In particular, they installed a portrait of the
President of Russia outside a public reception centre in Cheboksary, laying two carnations in front of
it to mark his years in power – reflecting the Russian tradition of leaving flowers on a tombstone
next to the image of the deceased. 30 minutes into the performance Mr Karuyev spat on the
portrait.
He was arrested four hours later, and subsequently convicted of a minor breach of public order and
sentenced to 15 days’ detention. The courts essentially ruled that he had shown “flagrant disrespect
for society” by degrading “the honour and dignity of the popularly elected President of Russia.”
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, Mr Karuyev argued that
his act had been an expression of his political opposition and that the real purpose of his conviction
had been to suppress any criticism of President Putin.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
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.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held, by 6 votes to 1, that Russia was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 2,400 in respect of costs and expenses.
Separate opinions
Judge Pavli expressed a concurring opinion, while Judge Dedov expressed a dissenting opinion.
These opinions are annexed to the judgment.
