Press Release, 15.07.2026

Photo: Alexander Shishlov / Photo by the Yabloko Press Service

On Wednesday, 15 July, the St.Petersburg City Court rejected the appeal and upheld the ruling of the Petrogradsky District Court fining Alexander Shishlov, Coordinator of Yabloko’s Federal Political Committee and former head of the party’s faction in the St.Petersburg Legislative Assembly, 1,500 roubles. Under Russian law, a fine under this article bars a politician from standing in elections for a year, regardless of the amount. The defence maintained that the case involved numerous violations: there was neither an event constituting an offence nor corpus delicti, while the evidence relied upon was inadmissible.

It should be noted that Alexander Shishlov was fined over an alleged “display of extremist symbols” (Article 20.3(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences). The grounds for the prosecution were a repost, made more than three years earlier, of an interview with Grigory Yavlinsky posted on Telegram in 2023. The first-instance proceedings were riddled with egregious violations: eleven defence motions were rejected, and evidence had been falsified. The court’s ruling automatically stripped Alexander Shishlov of the right to stand in the September 2026 State Duma and St.Petersburg Legislative Assembly elections.

Alexander Shishlov’s interests in court are represented by lawyer Andrei Chertkov and legal counsel Vitaly Isakov, one of the leaders of Yabloko’s federal candidate list for the forthcoming State Duma elections.

Key violations in Alexander Shishlov’s case identified by the defence

The statute of limitations had expired

In the defence’s view, the proceedings were subject to mandatory termination owing to the expiry of the statute of limitations. The case file shows that the publication had been discovered by an authorised official – a senior operations officer of Center E (the Centre for Combatting Extremism) – as early as 19 January 2026.

The statute of limitations under Article 20.3(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences is 90 days from the date the “offence” is discovered. Accordingly, the limitation period expired on 19 April 2026.

The ruling, however, was issued on 24 April 2026, that is, after the limitation period had expired. The judge had unjustifiably shifted the date of discovery to 6 February 2026, without giving any reasoning for doing so. The Third Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction had previously ruled that such a calculation of time limits was incorrect.

No event constituting an offence – the prohibited symbols were not specified

Article 20.3(1) establishes liability specifically for the display of extremist symbols. Under Article 1(4) of the Federal Law “On Counteracting Extremist Activity,” only symbols whose description is contained in an organisation’s founding documents and published in the publicly available register on the Ministry of Justice’s website may be recognised as the symbols of an extremist organisation. The judge cited no evidence that any such description existed.

In the ruling on the administrative offence case, the judge did not specify which image, sign, logo, photograph or other designation constituted extremist symbols in the case against Shishlov.

It is impossible to establish from the ruling which extremist organisation is at issue, which founding documents contain a description of the symbols in question, or by which judicial act they were recognised as extremist.

The court therefore held Shishlov liable in the absence of any event constituting an offence.

No corpus delicti – no intent to promote extremism was proven

The note to Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences establishes that liability does not arise for using symbols without the intent to promote or justify extremist ideology. However, the judge did not even consider whether Shishlov had had such intent, confining herself to the unsubstantiated assertion that the defence’s arguments regarding the absence of intent were an attempt to evade liability.

The defence had drawn attention to the humanistic, anti-extremist thrust of Shishlov’s activities, but these arguments were ignored. The absence of any intent to promote extremism precludes guilt.

The video recording carries a label noting the organisation’s ban, which precludes unlawfulness

The video recording, to which the court attached evidential weight, displays a label from the first second: “the organisation has been added to the register of foreign agents, recognised as extremist and banned in Russia”. Under Article 4(2) of the Russian Law “On the Mass Media,” any report about an organisation banned by court order must state that it has been liquidated or that its activities are prohibited. The dissemination of information bearing such a notice is not unlawful. The first-instance court disregarded this argument.

The evidence underlying the ruling was inadmissible

The defence points to a number of procedural violations: the expert opinion cited by the court is not an expert opinion within the meaning of Article 25.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences and contains only probabilistic formulations; the specialist who had carried out the examination did not hold the requisite qualifications; the compact disc containing the video recording of the broadcast had no sound; the certificate identifying the account was drawn up without the involvement of a specialist and without requesting data from Telegram’s administration; the inspection report of 6 February 2026 was drawn up in violation of Article 27.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences, without witnesses and without a video recording; and the photo log was compiled as an appendix to an “inspection of the scene of the incident,” a procedure not provided for by law in cases of this category.

The first-instance court gave no reasoning for rejecting the defence’s arguments and failed to assess the contradictions

The ruling on the administrative offence case contains no analysis of the contradictions pointed out by the defence: a discrepancy in the times recorded in the inspection report and the photo log, and inconsistencies between the dates and times given in the expert opinion and in the report on the inspection of the publication. The judge left unaddressed the defence’s arguments regarding the expiry of the limitation period, the absence of intent to promote extremism, the label noting the organisation’s ban, the inadmissibility of the evidence, and the insignificance of the act, in violation of the principle of comprehensive case review.

The St.Petersburg City Court nevertheless disregarded the defence’s arguments. The decision to fine Alexander Shishlov stood. It will be appealed in cassation.

“The political nature of this case is obvious. In our view, what is happening is blatant legal absurdity being used as a tool to remove a strong opposition politician from the 2026 elections. Alexander Shishlov is one of our party’s most consistent, principled and respected members. What is happening to him is part of a systematic campaign of pressure on Yabloko ahead of the elections. I am confident that citizens will give it the assessment it deserves. We will pursue justice through every lawful means,” said Dmitry Anisimov, a deputy of the St.Petersburg Legislative Assembly and one of the leaders of Yabloko’s federal candidate list for the forthcoming State Duma elections.

Ahead of the elections in St Petersburg and other regions, the pressure on Yabloko has become systematic. Around 40 people, including many party leaders and regional deputies, have been barred from standing in the elections on various grounds (designated “foreign agents,” fined under Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, convicted, or held in pre-trial detention facilities). Criminal cases have been opened against 12 people, four have been convicted, and two are being held in pre-trial detention facilities.