The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Tuesday ruled that the Russian “undesirable organization” law was incompatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which Russia was a signatory to until 2022. In the case of Andrey Rylkov Foundation and Others v. Russia, the Strasbourg court unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression), as well as Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention in respect of all applicants, which included four applicant organizations designated by the Kremlin as “undesirable,” as well as those individuals who were personally prosecuted for engaging in activities with said organizations.
The applicants in Andrey Rylkov Foundation & Others were four organizations who had previously been declared “undesirable” under Russian law: the Free Russia Foundation, based in the US; Ukrainian World Congress, based in Toronto; the Association of Schools of Political Studies of the Council of Europe, based in Strasbourg; and Společnost Svobody Informace, in Prague. An additional three organizations, based in Russia, and several Russian nationals therewith associated, were also identified as applicants in the case, after being convicted for their involvement with organizations that had received a similar designation.
The ECtHR, in Tuesday’s decision, held that the 2015 law had not been formulated with “sufficient precision to enable the applicant organizations to foresee that their otherwise lawful actions would result in their designation as ‘undesirable’ and a prohibition on their activities in Russia.” Finding a lack of adequate safeguards against the arbitrary and “unrestricted discretion” given to Russian authorities, the ECtHR thus found that the law failed the requirement under the Convention for interference with a Convention right to be ‘prescribed by law’ to be considered just and, therefore, legal.
Under the doctrine of just satisfaction, Russia will be ordered to pay the applicants (non)pecuniary damages, and costs and expenses. These amounts are to be set out in the official judgment following its publication. It is important to note, in this regard, that despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe and the enjoined Convention bodies, this does not release it from its duty to cooperate with said bodies and execute Tuesday’s binding judgment pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention. The ECtHR’s Committee of Ministers will continue to supervise the enforcement of the court’s judgments, which Russia is required to implement.
Russia’s “undesirable organization” designation law first emerged in May of 2015 as a follow-up to the 2012 Foreign Agent law and the Dima Yakovlev law, the latter of which defines available sanctions against US citizens found to be involved in violating “the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens.” Under the 2015 law, Russian officials and prosecutors are empowered to extrajudicially declare foreign and international organizations “undesirable” in Russia, and shut down their operations. The designation can impose severe restrictions on an organization, including bans on having offices or carrying out operations within Russia (and its territories), and being barred from registering with a Russian bank. Organizations that receive this designation can also be subject to harsh prison sentences and exorbitant fines if they fail to dissolve when given notice.
Prior to ECtHR’s ruling, critics of the law have argued that it is arbitrary and too vague that it is unclear what exactly triggers an “undesirable organization” designation. Amnesty International, immediately following the law’s promulgation in 2015, called the legislation a “troubling sign of the [Russian] authorities’ vigorous measures to restrict any public space for criticism,” and said that it would “further tighten the noose on dissent.”
