Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Russia violated Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 6 (fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by imposing disproportionate fines on Google LLC for refusing to remove political content from YouTube and by compelling it to restore accounts of a sanctioned television channel. The Court found that these measures struck at the very heart of the Internet’s function as a forum for the free exchange of ideas and that the excessive fines could have a chilling effect. It also ruled that the domestic courts’ reasoning in both the administrative and civil proceedings was manifestly inadequate, violating Article 6(1) of the ECHR. It unanimously concluded that the sanctions and enforcement proceedings were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society.

Facts

The applicants were four Google companies: Google LLC (United States), Google Ireland Ltd, Google International LLC, and Google OOO (Russia). Google LLC provides access to YouTube, Google Ireland offers Gmail and other services, and Google Russia manages local advertising operations.

In 2021, following the entry into force of Article 13.41 of Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences (‘CAO’), Roskomnadzor (RKN), Russia’s telecommunications regulator, issued several take-down requests (TDRs) requiring YouTube to remove videos critical of the government, reporting on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and content supporting LGBTQ rights. When Google LLC declined to remove some of these videos, the Justice of the Peace for the Tagansky District in Moscow imposed a turnover-based fine of RUB 7.2 billion (≈EUR 87 million) in December 2021 and a second fine of RUB 21 billion (≈ EUR 360 million) in July 2022. Both were calculated on the aggregated revenue of Google LLC and its “affiliated entities,” based on YouTube’s Terms of Service. The courts upheld the fines without addressing the lawfulness of the content or weighing freedom of expression concerns.

Separately, in 2020, Russian media outlet Tsargrad TV successfully sued Google before the Moscow City Commercial Court for suspending its YouTube and Gmail accounts. Tsargrad TV is owned by a businessman sanctioned by the U.S. and EU for supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea. A court ordered Google to restore the accounts, declaring foreign sanctions contrary to Russian public order, and imposed escalating daily penalties (astreinte) doubling each week until compliance. Even after Google restored access, enforcement continued, leading to massive penalties and contributing to the bankruptcy of Google’s Russian subsidiary.

On 16 September 2022, Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd, Google Commerce Ltd, and Google OOO lodged applications before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) alleging violations of Article 10 and 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), relating to the rights to freedom of expression and fair trial, respectively. 

Decision Overview

The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights delivered a unanimous judgment on 8 July 2025, finding that Russia violated Articles 10 and 6 of the Convention. The main issues for the Court were whether the imposition of massive turnover-based fines on Google for failing to remove YouTube content and the compulsory order to restore Tsargrad TV’s accounts were compatible with freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR, and whether the domestic proceedings respected the fair trial guarantees of Article 6(1) of the same treaty.

The applicants argued that the sanctions were unprecedented in severity and served as instruments of censorship, targeting political speech that reported on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and supported LGBTQ rights. They stressed that Russian law was applied arbitrarily, with domestic courts using unforeseeable concepts like “affiliated entities” and “de facto representative offices” to justify penalties. They further claimed that compelling YouTube to host Tsargrad TV’s accounts violated the negative aspect of freedom of expression: the right not to be forced to disseminate speech. In their view, the Russian courts ignored decisive objections and issued judgments with deficient reasoning, undermining their rights under both Article 10 and Article 6 of the ECHR.

The Government of Russia did not participate in the proceedings before the ECtHR. Domestically, however, Russian authorities maintained that the measures pursued national security, territorial integrity, and public safety. The Russian courts reasoned that Google’s refusal to delete flagged content constituted repeated administrative offences, and that Tsargrad TV’s contractual rights outweighed Google’s reliance on international sanctions law.

The Court first examined the fines imposed for failing to remove user-generated content. It reiterated that Article 10 of the ECHR protects both content and the means of its dissemination, noting that “there is little scope … for restrictions on political speech.” [para. 74] The ECtHR stressed that the measures were applied indiscriminately to criticism of the Government, independent war reporting, and other forms of political expression, and that the domestic courts “made no effort” to assess the truthfulness, risks, or impact of the targeted content. The Court held that the sanctions struck “at the very heart of the Internet’s function as a means for the free exchange of ideas and information” [para. 80] and were liable to have a chilling effect. [para. 81] Relying on its precedents in Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1), Castells v. Spain, and Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, the ECtHR emphasized YouTube’s unique role in enabling pluralistic debate, especially in the context of war.

In that sense, the Court considered that the fines, calculated on global revenue and amounting to billions of roubles, were liable to have a chilling effect. The Court found no legitimate aim justifying the interference and ruled that it was not necessary in a democratic society.

Tsargrad Civil Proceedings against Google

Turning to the civil proceedings, the ECtHR found that the orders compelling Google to host Tsargrad TV’s accounts also violated Article 10 of the ECHR. It reaffirmed that Article 10 encompasses a negative right—the right not to be compelled to express or disseminate information. Forcing Google to host Tsargrad’s content under threat of escalating, unlimited penalties directly interfered with this right. The Court cited Gillberg v. Sweden and Semir Güzel v. Turkey to confirm that freedom of expression includes the right to remain silent, and also drew on Delfi AS v. Estonia and Sanchez v. France to stress that while intermediaries bear certain duties and responsibilities, these cannot justify coerced hosting of State-aligned media.

The fines, described as “astronomical sums,” doubled weekly without limit and were manifestly disproportionate to any harm demonstrated. The ECtHR further noted that enforcement continued in bad faith, as the authorities expanded the scope of the original order through an expert report prepared without adversarial participation—a practice incompatible with legal certainty. Accordingly, the measures were not necessary in a democratic society and amounted to a violation of Article 10. The Court also found that the domestic courts failed to address decisive arguments, including the legality of aggregating revenues of foreign affiliates and the basis for treating Google Russia as a representative office, thus “undermining the very essence” of the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. [para. 106]

Judge Pavli concurring opinion

Judge Pavli delivered a concurring opinion. While joining the unanimous findings, he highlighted the unprecedented severity of the sanctions and their systemic implications for digital freedoms. He noted that the fines were not only disproportionate but also designed to “intimidate and disable” a global platform in retaliation for hosting political speech. His concurrence underscored the broader significance of the case, describing it as an illustration of how States may instrumentalize legal mechanisms to undermine the infrastructure of the Internet and pluralistic debate.