DISINFO: The ECHR states that there were no political motivations in the 2014 Yves Rocher fraud case against Alexei Navalny
SUMMARY
According to the European Court of Human Rights there were no political motivations in the 2014 Yves Rocher fraud case against Alexei Navalny.
RESPONSE
Recurrent pro-Kremlin narrative stating that the Kremlin's political opponents are criminals and should be arrested in Russia or abroad. The article is part of the ongoing disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting the Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny. One of the messages spread by this campaign, is that the 2014 Yves Rocher fraud case against Navalny was fully legitimate and did not pursue any pro-Kremlin political objectives. This case clearly misrepresents the ECHR's judgement.
In February 2014, Alexei Navalny was placed under house arrest while being investigated, along with his brother, for alleged fraud and money laundering in relation to two companies, Multidisciplinary Processing Ltd (MPK) and Yves Rocher Vostok Ltd. (a subsidiary of the French cosmetics company). Prior to the sentencing the YvesRocher company admitted it has suffered “no damage”
However, in December 2014, Navalny and his brother were found guilty of the charges in relation to MPK and Yves Rocher Vostok. Alexey Navalny was given a suspended sentence of three and half years in jail.
It is not true, as the Sputnik Italia article claims, that the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) declared that “there were no political motivations” in the 2014 Yves Rocher fraud case against Navalny.
The ECHR Chamber Judgement of April 4, 2019, which concerned Navalny’s house arrest and restrictive measures related to the Yves Rochet fraud case, did not declare that there were no political motivations in the case. In this judgement, the ECHR “corroborated Navalny’s allegations” that the house-arrest and restrictions on him in the Yves Rocher case had been aimed at limiting his public activities, and that they had pursued the same aim of the suppression of political pluralism. The ECHR also found that the house-arrest order, which had lasted 10 months, was not in proportion to the alleged crimes, and that the restrictions on Navalny during his house arrest had become more and more incongruous over time and parts of the communications ban had even been found to be unlawful in court.
In its previous October 2017 ruling, the ECHR declined to examine whether the Yves Rocher case was politically motivated, although three judges said that it should have done so.
Read a similar case claiming that Navalny’s arrest was in compliance with lawful procedures because he has a suspended sentence.