Search
The European Court of Human Rights has delivered judgment in Google LLC and Others v. Russia (App. no. 44316/20), a freedom of expression case that also addressed Russia’s recent practice of disapplying foreign jurisdiction clauses in sanctions-related disputes.
The case concerned court proceedings in Russia on the refusal to remove certain content from the YouTube platform, including political videos, which the Russian authorities had deemed unlawful; and the failure to restore monetisation features to the YouTube channel of Tsargrad TV, a Russian television outlet owned by a Russian oligarch who had been sanctioned by the US and the EU. Google incurred very heavy fines as a result of these proceedings. In its judgment, the European Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).
In the Tsargrad case, the European Court also examined the impact of recent Russian legislation permitting domestic courts to assume jurisdiction over sanctions-related disputes—even where the parties have agreed to a foreign jurisdiction clause—in cases where sanctions are deemed to pose an obstacle to access to justice for the sanctioned party (Article 248.1 of the Code of Commercial Procedure). The Court found that the domestic courts’ presumption that sanctions created such obstacles in the jurisdictions designated by the parties’ contract was not substantiated by any concrete reasons or evidence and failed to address material in the case file that contradicted this conclusion, undermining the very essence of the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment.
Drew Holiner of Monckton Chambers was instructed on behalf of the applicant to provide expert evidence on Russian law. The applicant was represented by Will Thomas KC and Joshua Kelly of Freshfields LLP and Tim Otty KC, Charlotte Kilroy KC and Jason Pobjoy KC of Blackstone Chambers.