Previous 1 / 30 Next

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SAVVA TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 10692/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 August 2018 FINAL 04/02/2019 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Savva Terentyev v. Russia

Case Law

Country

Russia

Country Location

Latitude: 55.84775990443999

Longitude: 37.50146462023251

Country Location (linked Case Law): Russia

Decision Date: Aug 28, 2018

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

Hate Speech
Public Officials

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: 10692/09

Case Summary: The European Court of Human Rights held that the imposition of a suspended sentence on an individual for posting a provocative comment online, that criticized police abuse, amounted to a violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The post was made in response to a press release that reported on a politically-motivated police search of a newspaper’s premises during an election period. Mr. Savva Terentyev posted a comment on a blog about the press release. In the comment he referred to the police as “cops”, “pigs”, and “hoodlums”. The comment also alluded to the burning of police officers “like at Auschwitz”. Mr. Savva Terentyev received a one-year suspended sentence for publicly inciting hatred and enmity, and humiliating the dignity of a group of persons on the grounds of their membership of a “social group”. In doing so, the Russian courts included police officers as a specially protected group under its hate speech laws. The European Court of Human Rights held that, taking into account the whole comment and the context in which it was made, Mr. Terentyev’s conviction was a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression. In its judgment, the European Court of Human Rights warned that laws regulating hate speech and incitement to violence must be clearly and precisely defined, as well as strictly construed, in order to “avoid a situation where the State’s discretion to prosecute for such offenses becomes too broad and potentially subject to abuse through selective enforcement.”

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: May 15, 2024

Primary Documents

CASE OF SAVVA TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Savva Terentyev v. Russia

Primary Documents

Notifications