"This decision brings attention to the problematic nature of foreign agent-style laws, which are proliferating as governments, including those of Georgia and Turkey, attempt to stifle criticism" - ARTICLE 19
This statement was originally published on article19.org on 7 November 2024.
ARTICLE 19 welcomes the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in a case concerning restrictions on the rights of Russian non‑governmental organisations (NGOs), media organisations and individuals designated as ‘foreign agents’. The Court unanimously found that the Russian law and its restrictions violated the rights to freedom of expression and privacy of NGOs and individuals. This decision brings attention to the problematic nature of foreign agent-style laws, which are proliferating as governments, including those of Georgia and Turkey, attempt to stifle criticism.
Kobaliya and Others v. Russia is a grouping of cases of 107 applicants, including both NGOs and individuals, who alleged that the restrictions imposed on them by the Russian government’s designation of them as ‘foreign agents’ violated their rights to freedom of expression.
ARTICLE 19 submitted a third-party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) in 2021 in The New Times LLC and Others v. Russia, one of the cases in the grouping.
We appreciate that the Court followed the recommendations from our submission in their decision. In particular, it found that:
- The unduly vague and overly broad nature of the law in purpose and in effect prevents NGOs, human rights defenders, and civil society actors from challenging state authority, and
- The restrictions imposed through the law constitute an undue intrusion on individuals’ right to privacy that do not serve any public interest. The Court agreed that collecting and publicly registering individuals’ names stigmatises and prevents them from effectively doing their jobs and participating in public discourse.
We believe that the Court’s decision in this case represents a crucial victory for Russian non-governmental organisations (NGOs), media outlets, and individuals who have faced increasing restrictions on their freedoms of expression and association. By affirming that Russia’s legislation and actions violated fundamental human rights, the ruling provides much-needed legal validation for those who have long struggled against oppressive measures.
We also find that this decision holds significant importance beyond Russia’s borders, particularly for countries considering or implementing similar ‘foreign agent’ laws, or expanding them in scope to include individual journalists, bloggers, and public figures.
We hope that this decision will provide a powerful legal tool for NGOs, media outlets, and activists in these countries to challenge similar restrictive measures, potentially leading to a reconsideration or modification of existing or proposed legislation to better align with international human rights standards.
