Case Summary and Outcome

The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Russia violated articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to protect journalists who reported on the persecution of gay men in Chechnya. In April 2017, Novaya Gazeta published articles by Elena Milashina detailing mass abductions, torture, and killings of Chechen men perceived as homosexual, which prompted public threats of “retribution” from Chechen officials and religious leaders. The Court found that these threats constituted an interference with the journalists’ freedom of expression, as they were made by state representatives and created a climate of fear. According to the ECtHR, Russian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into these threats despite formal complaints, particularly given Novaya Gazeta‘s history of having five journalists murdered for their work between 2000 and 2009.

---

Facts

Novaya Gazeta, a Moscow-based newspaper established in 1998, published two articles in April 2017 reporting on the persecution of gay men in Chechnya. On April 1, 2017, journalist Elena Milashina wrote “Honour Killing,” which detailed mass abductions, arbitrary detentions, torture, and killings of Chechen men, allegedly homosexual or perceived as gay by Chechen authorities. The article cited confirmation from multiple official sources and established a crisis line for victims. A follow-up article on April 4, titled “Massacre of Chechen Gays,” presented accounts from three survivors who had contacted the crisis line. The allegations were subsequently corroborated by numerous organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and major international media outlets. The persecution campaign reportedly caused more than 114 LGBTI people and family members to flee Chechnya. 

Following these publications, Chechen officials made threatening public statements. On April 2, 2017, Dzhambulat Umarov, Chechnya’s Minister for National Politics, warned on a state-run news portal that LGBTQI people would be “harshly persecuted” and might face “more radical measures.” On April 3, a public meeting at Grozny’s central mosque, attended by approximately 15,000 people, featured Adam Shakhidov—an advisor to Ramzan Kadyrov (Head of the Chechen Republic)—who accused Novaya Gazeta’s staff of libel and called them “enemies of our faith and homeland.” [para. 10] In this meeting, a resolution was adopted declaring the newspaper’s reporting “absolutely a lie and slander” and ominously promising “retribution to the instigators, whoever and wherever they are [and however long it may take].” [para. 10] This resolution was broadcast on state television and published on Grozny-Inform on April 5. 

On April 13, Novaya Gazeta published a statement expressing concern that the resolution would “incite religious fanatics to commit atrocities” and calling upon Russian authorities to prevent incitement of hatred toward journalists. The next day, Salakh Mezhiyev, the Mufti of the Chechen Republic (religious authority), stated during a radio broadcast that Milashina would “be held responsible according to law” and face “the reprisal of the almighty Allah.”  [para. 11-12] Dmitry Muratov, chair of Novaya Gazeta‘s editorial council and a 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, responded with a published message defending the newspaper’s reporting and noting that he saw the resolution’s mention of “retribution” as “a direct call to violence.” On April 15, Mezhiyev issued another statement calling the journalists “creatures” who would “be held responsible according to law” and asserting that “retribution will without a doubt reach them.” [para. 12-13] On the same day, Minister Umarov published a response demanding that the newspaper apologize to the Chechen people, journalists learn about regional mentality, and “stop already [your] hysteria about non-existent threats.” [para. 15] On April 22, Kadyrov himself criticized Novaya Gazeta’s journalists during a festival, stating they “want[ed] war in Russia” and should be chased “far away from our territory.” [para. 16]

Following the publications, Elena Milashina received numerous death threats via Facebook from anonymous users with usernames suggesting Caucasus and Chechen origins. She had to relocate from her home, limit public transportation use, and travel with a driver between her office and temporary accommodations. By late April 2017, she left Russia until year’s end due to safety concerns and a lack of meaningful investigations into the threats. 

On April 18, 2017, Novaya Gazeta’s editorial board and Milashina filed a complaint with the Investigative Committee of Russia regarding the death threats and statements inciting hatred against journalists. An investigator initially refused to open a criminal case on May 17, 2017, claiming video recordings of the April 3rd meeting had been deleted after the storage time limit expired. Although this refusal was overturned on May 26, 2017, by the Head of the Investigating Authority as “unlawful and unsubstantiated”, the subsequent investigation proved inadequate. When questioned on June 6, 2017, Mezhiyev stated that, according to Islamic tenets, people in “non-traditional relations are executed,” but since executions were banned by law, they merely disapprove and expect punishment by Allah. He claimed the expression “retribution” in the resolution referred only to divine punishment. 

Between July 2017 and February 2018, twelve nearly identical decisions alternately refused to open a criminal case and quashed those refusals. Muratov and Sergei Kozheurov’s (Novaya Gazeta’s editor-in-chief) complaint to the Yessentuki Town Court on October 4, 2018, detailing the investigation’s deficiencies, was dismissed on December 14, 2018, without addressing most arguments. Their appeal to the Stavropol Regional Court was similarly dismissed on March 12, 2019. No charges were ever brought related to the threats.  The newspaper and its staff continued facing intimidation and violence. In 2021, a toxic chemical was sprayed at Novaya Gazeta’s Moscow office entrance. Between 2017 and 2022, Milashina and the newspaper were repeatedly verbally attacked by Kadyrov and his subordinates for their Chechnya coverage, and Milashina was physically assaulted twice during business trips to Chechnya in 2020 and 2023. 

On April 7, 2022, Muratov was attacked on a train with a mixture of oil paint and acetone, causing chemical burns to his eyes. The attacker reportedly shouted, “Muratov, here’s one for our boys.” Despite surveillance footage allegedly capturing the incident, no criminal case was opened. On April 19, 2017, an envelope containing white powder addressed to Sergey Kozheurov was delivered to the newspaper’s office, signed “Grozny” with “666666” in the zip code field. No official action was taken regarding this incident. Between 2000 and 2009, five Novaya Gazeta journalists were murdered in connection with their work: Igor Domnikov (2000), Yuri Shchekochikhin (2003), Anna Politkovskaya (2006), Anastasiya Baburova (2009), and Nataliya Estemirova (2009). A lawyer working with the newspaper, Stanislav Markelov, was also killed in 2009. At least eight other journalists had been attacked or regularly received threats. Two had to leave Russia due to safety concerns. 

Aggrieved,  Milashina, Muratov, Kozheurov and Novaya Gazeta, approached the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) alleging violations of Articles 2, 8, 10, and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), citing the State’s failure to protect them from threats and discrimination following their reporting on a violent anti-LGBT campaign in Chechnya and related human rights abuses.

---

Decision Overview

The Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights delivered the decision. The primary issue for the Court was whether Russia violated the freedom of expression and right to privacy of journalists by failing to investigate death threats made by Chechen officials against Novaya Gazeta’s staff following their reporting on LGBTI persecution in Chechnya.

On the violation of freedom of expression

The applicants contended that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of expression because they were independent journalists reporting on human rights violations perpetrated in Chechnya, who were threatened and attacked for their journalistic work. According to the applicants, domestic authorities failed to take measures to protect them. They contended that the statements made by Chechen officials and religious leaders constituted death threats and incitement to violence against them. The applicants argued that the resolution adopted at the April 3rd meeting promised “retribution to the instigators” [para. 10], and that the Mufti’s statements that journalists would “be held responsible” and face “the reprisal of the almighty Allah” [para. 12-14] directly threatened their safety and freedom of expression. They maintained that these threats were particularly credible given the newspaper’s tragic history of five murdered journalists and the pattern of violence against media professionals critical of Chechen authorities.

The applicants further asserted that Russian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into these threats, violating their rights under Article 10 of the ECHR. They pointed out that the pre-investigative inquiry was incomplete, since investigators belatedly requested video evidence after it had been destroyed, failed to establish the resolution’s authors, and neglected to conduct forensic linguistic examinations of the threatening statements. For the applicants, no meaningful investigation was conducted, and their legal appeals were dismissed without addressing substantive arguments, leaving them without protection against credible threats to their lives and professional activities. 

Following its expulsion from the Council of Europe, Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on 16 September 2022 and did not participate in the present proceedings or submit any observations.

The Court began by clarifying the scope of its examination. It decided to focus solely on the verbal threats received by the applicants following the publication of the articles from April 1 and 4, 2017, rather than the subsequent attacks mentioned in the applicants’ additional observations. The ECtHR reaffirmed that interferences to freedom of expression can take various forms under Article 10 § 2 of the ECHR, citing the case of RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia. Referencing Dink v. Turkey, it further noted that states have positive obligations to create an environment conducive to public debates without fear.

The Court found that after the publication of the first article on mass arrests, torture, and killings of Chechen men perceived as homosexual, Chechen officials and religious authorities made public threats of “retribution” and “punishment” by divine force. These statements, particularly the resolution adopted at a meeting attended by fifteen thousand people in a mosque, could reasonably be understood as inciting animosity and violence against Novaya Gazeta’s journalists. The ECtHR referenced the cases of Wille v. Liechtenstein and V.K. v. Russia to underscore that a State’s responsibility for human rights violations may arise from acts of any of its organs, agents, and servants.  It further cited Bavčar v. Slovenia to argue that the statements made by senior public officials in Chechnya engaged the state’s responsibility under the ECHR.

The Court observed that the officials and religious figures did not contest the specific allegations in the report. Rather, they appeared offended by the very notion that LGBTI people existed in their community. To the ECtHR, this campaign of intimidation occurred within a context of prior deadly violence against Novaya Gazeta’s journalists. Despite the applicants’ formal complaints alerting authorities to these threats, the Court found that no reasonable steps were taken to conduct a thorough investigation. [para. 57] Accordingly, the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR. 

On the violation of the right to respect for private and family life

The applicants argued that Russian authorities failed to fulfill their positive obligation to protect them despite being aware of threats since April 2017. They contended that authorities neither properly assessed risks nor took preventative measures under victim protection laws, and failed to investigate threats and physical attacks against Milashina and Muratov in 2020-2023. The applicants highlighted that some state representatives even supported the threatening resolution and statements made by Chechen religious leaders, and characterized these as dehumanizing fatwa-like calls for revenge. They further argued that the threats were particularly credible given the established pattern of violence against critics of Ramzan Kadyrov’s regime, with journalists and activists being intimidated, attacked, beaten, falsely accused, kidnapped, and killed without proper investigation. The applicants held that these threats were specifically aimed at obstructing their reporting on human rights violations in Chechnya. 

The Court held that high-level Chechen officials and religious leaders made public statements constituting threats against the applicants—following the April 2017 articles about the persecution of gay men in Chechnya. These statements were broadcast on state-controlled television and social media, generating additional threats from unidentified individuals. Ms. Milashina, as the primary author, became the main target of online harassment, forcing her to implement protective measures and eventually flee the country. The ECtHR found that the threats received in response to the applicants’ professional journalistic activities fell within the scope of their “private life” under Article 8 of the Convention. It further noted that Muratov and Kozheurov were directly affected, as they had to adopt enhanced security measures which “disrupted the normal functioning of the newspaper and their daily routines. 

The Court specifically observed that the statements were “clearly aimed at repressing the applicants’ intellectual personality, inspiring in them feelings of fear, anguish and vulnerability capable of humiliating and debasing them and of breaking their will to freely pursue their journalistic work.” [para. 77] To the ECtHR, these statements, made by officials, sought to undermine the applicants’ journalism without contesting the specific allegations in the articles. They generated fear among the applicants, threatened their safety, and positioned them as “outcasts” among the Chechen people. The Court found that this direct interference with their right to respect for private life reached the severity threshold required by Article 8 of the ECHR.  

The ECtHR emphasized that the repeated statements against the applicants, particularly those from the Mufti of Chechnya, sought to “dehumanise them in the eyes of the Chechen and other believers” in ways that could be perceived as religious authorization for violence. This exposed them to “potentially serious acts of violence or intimidation by a multitude of persons over an extended period of time.” Since national authorities effectively “condoned the actions of the Chechen officials” and conducted ineffective investigations into the criminal complaints, the Court found that Russia violated Article 8 of the ECHR. [para. 79]

In conclusion, the ECtHR unanimously found that Russia violated articles 10 and 8 of the ECHR. The Court awarded  EUR 7,500 to the applicant company and EUR 9,800 to each of the individual applicants in non-pecuniary damages.

---