Over the course of 2025, the legislation of interest to us — on countering extremism and terrorism, as well as related provisions affecting freedom of expression and freedom of association — underwent a number of significant changes. Most of them were aimed at tightening regulations, with some exceptions. In this report, we summarize the most important changes, as well as several relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Russia.
Countering Extremism
Incitement of Hatred
A telling development was the amendment of Article 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity). The President of Russia signed the law implementing it on June 24.
Part 1 of this article is now divided into two clauses. Liability under clause “a” applies not only to those who have faced administrative punishment for an analogous act under Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) within the preceding year, as was the case before the amendments, but also to those already having a criminal record under Article 282 or Article 280 (calls for extremist activity), or Article 2824 (repeated public display of prohibited symbols).
New clause “b” provides for prosecution against actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, or humiliating human dignity, when such actions are “combined with the justification or propaganda of the use of violence or the threat of its use.” Thus, the famous “partial decriminalization” of Article 282 CC, which took place in 2018, has been revised to a certain extent.
In addition, in Article 282 Part 2 CC, the wording “by an organized group” was replaced with a broader one: “by a group of persons, a group of persons acting by prior conspiracy, or an organized group.”
The explanatory note to the bill stated that previously, in almost half of cases under Article 20.3.1 CAO, proceedings were initiated for acts that “justify, support, approve, or advocate the use of violence or the threat of such use.” One might have predicted a sharp increase in prosecutions under Article 282 CC and a corresponding drop in cases under Article 20.3.1 CAO, but our monitoring does not corroborate this expectation. The likely reason for this discrepancy is that the CAO imposes administrative liability for old online publications unless they were removed, i.e. the continued availability of online publications is interpreted as a continuous offense. By contrast, under Article 282 CC, “the crime is considered completed from the moment at least one action aimed at inciting hatred is committed,” according to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.[1] Therefore, in practice, people can face charges under the updated version of Article 282 CC only for publications made after the update entered into force in mid-2025. As of the time of writing this report, SOVA is aware of only three criminal cases initiated under clause “b” of Article 282 Part 1 CC.
Destruction or Damage to Property
Article 167 CC on intentional destruction or damage to property also became more restrictive; the President signed the relevant law in February. Now, for acts “motivated by political, ideological, racial, national, or religious hatred or enmity, or hatred or enmity towards a social group,” charges will follow under Part 2 of this article, with punishment in the form of compulsory labor or imprisonment for up to five years. Previously, this motive did not appear in Article 167 CC as a qualifying element, and such crimes were punished under Part 1, with sanctions ranging from fines to imprisonment for up to two years. On the other hand, it is possible that some ideologically motivated attacks of this kind can now be qualified under the new provision rather than under Article 205 CC (act of terrorism), as has often been done over the past three years.
Extremist Organizations
In July, three laws were signed that changed the regulations on banning extremist organizations. Under amendments to the Federal Law “On Countering Extremist Activity,” the concept of an “extremist organization” was expanded to include not only associations and organizations banned by a separate court decision, but also extremist communities, once a court verdict under Article 2821 CC for creating such a community, leading it, or participating in it enters into legal force. It is worth reminding that Article 2821 CC defines an extremist community as an “organized group of persons,” created “to prepare for or commit extremist crimes,” that is, crimes motivated by hatred.
Accordingly, such communities will now also be included in the official list of extremist organizations, and thus, liability for continuing their activities will fall under Article 2822 CC. A similar mechanism has long been in place with respect to terrorist communities.
Extremist Materials
Another package of laws signed in July contained unexpected new provisions regulating communications services. One of them, which was widely discussed, was the introduction into the CAO of a new Article 13.53 (searching for knowingly extremist materials and accessing them). This offense is punished by a fine of 3,000 to 5,000 rubles. Authority to file offense reports was granted not only to the police but also to the FSB. It should be noted that this provision establishes liability for searching for materials included on the relevant federal list as well as for any other “knowingly extremist” materials, i.e., materials falling under the definition provided in the legislation (in particular, works by leaders of the NSDAP and the Italian Fascist Party, images of leaders of groups recognized as criminal by the Nuremberg Tribunal, or Nazi collaborators).
Imposing sanctions merely for searching for information is an unprecedented legal innovation, even compared to Soviet legislation. As of the end of 2025, we know of only one person who faced charges under this provision.
Prohibited Symbols
In July, a law was also signed changing the sanctions under Article 20.3 CAO on propaganda or public display of prohibited symbols, the most popular of the “anti-extremism” CAO articles. Now, the maximum sanction for individuals under both parts of this article is community service for up to 100 hours, combined with confiscation of the objects involved in the offense. Previously, punishment under this article included only fines and administrative arrest.
Countering Terrorism and Sabotage Activity
In November, the President signed a law amending Criminal Code articles that stipulate responsibility for sabotage and terrorist crimes. Some of the changes concern crimes committed by minors and crimes committed against them. The minimum age of criminal responsibility under Article 2051, Article 2054 Part 1, and Article 2055 Part 1, as well as Articles 281, 2811, 2812, and 2813, was lowered to 14.
Minors convicted under Article 2811 Part 1 and Article 2813 Part 2 CC can no longer be released from punishment and placed in a “closed special correctional educational facility”. Article 2051 Part 2 CC and Article 2811 Part 2 CC on involving others in terrorism or sabotage now include the aggravating circumstance of committing the crime against a minor.
Other legal innovations pertain to overall liability for such crimes. Under Articles 2055 and 2813 CC, organizers of the relevant organizations and communities will now face responsibility both for leading them and for acts committed by these organizations and communities, while participants will face charges for participation and for preparing or committing crimes in which they took part. Courts are no longer allowed to impose suspended sentences under Article 2813 Part 2 CC. Furthermore, courts cannot impose a sentence below the statutory minimum or a more lenient punishment, or refrain from applying additional punishment under all articles related to sabotage (Articles 281 to 2813 CC). The rule of not applying a statute of limitations — already in force for most terrorist offenses — has been extended to these articles as well. Finally, parole for offenders convicted under these provisions will be possible only after three quarters of the sentence have been served.
Related Topics
Discrediting the Army and Calls for Sanctions
In April, amendments were signed to the CC and the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) introducing a qualifying element of committing a crime for mercenary motives or for hire, as well as expanding the grounds for confiscation of property.
This qualifying element was added to Article 2803 Part 2 CC (discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of Russia or the exercise of powers by state bodies abroad). Thus, any such “discrediting” committed for mercenary motives now entails immediate criminal liability, just like in cases that involve grave consequences (property damage, harming citizens’ health, and so on), rather than administrative sanctions under Article 20.3.3 CAO.
Similar changes were made to Article 2842 CC (calls for sanctions against the Russian Federation) and Article 2843 CC (assistance in implementing decisions of international organizations in which the Russian Federation does not participate, or of foreign state bodies). Both now include Part 2, with sanctions ranging from substantial fines to imprisonment.
Politics of Memory
The law “On Perpetuating the Memory of the Victims of the Genocide of the Soviet People during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945” was signed in April. The law does indeed focus mainly on specific measures to commemorate the victims of Nazi crimes, but it also stipulates sanctions for violating it. The corresponding amendments to the CAO have not yet been submitted to the State Duma, although they have been in development since spring 2025. They are expected to affect Article 3541 (“Rehabilitation of Nazism”) and Article 2434 CC.
Another change to Article 2434 CC was made in July. Previously, it provided sanctions for causing destruction or damage to military graves, as well as monuments, stelae, obelisks, and other memorial structures or objects perpetuating the memory of those who died defending the Fatherland or its interests or dedicated to days of Russia’s military glory. Now, its scope includes not only destruction or damage to graves and monuments, but also their desecration (oskvernenie). Until 2020, desecration (nadrugatelstvo) of such objects was covered under Article 244 CC. With the introduction of Article 2434, a situation emerged in which specific charges were not established for desecration of memorial objects and structures unless they were symbols of Russia’s military glory or burial sites. The newly adopted amendment eliminated this gap. The proportionality of the severe sanctions established by Article 2434 CC raises concerns, particularly in cases where the actions did not result in significant material damage. On the other hand, enshrining responsibility for such actions under Article 2434 CC (which applies to specific tangible structures) better satisfies the principle of legal certainty than the practice of qualifying such acts under Parts 3 and 4 of Article 3541 CC as attacks on symbols of military glory and insults to the memory of defenders of the Fatherland, which has gained popularity in recent years. However, we observed no significant change in enforcement practice in cases involving “desecration” of Eternal Flames and similar objects in the second half of 2025.
Loss of Citizenship
Amendments signed in July expanded the list of grounds for revoking a decision on granting Russian citizenship. They include the crimes committed under a wide range of Criminal Code articles, including Article 2052 Part 1, Article 2804, and Article 2824 CC, as well as any crimes motivated by hatred or committed for the purposes of terrorist propaganda, justification or support of terrorism, or sabotage.
At the same time, the mechanism of revoking citizenship due to conviction for certain crimes was limited to those who obtained citizenship by application. Those recognized as citizens on the basis of a federal constitutional law or an international treaty (i.e., residents of the “new territories”) cannot lose their Russian citizenship as a result of a criminal conviction. However, their citizenship could still be terminated extrajudicially on the basis of an FSB decision.
Criminal Procedure and Penal Enforcement Law
A law signed in February introduced clarifications to the procedure for pretrial detention set out in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). Particularly, detention for medium-gravity crimes may now be applied by a court only if the crime involved “the use of violence or the threat of violence,” and in some exceptional cases. The grounds for detention were also further restricted for minor crimes.
These procedural “humanization” measures featured a number of exceptions. For example, they do not apply to suspects and defendants under Article 2052 Part 1, Article 2073 Part 1, Article 280, Article 2801, Article 2803 Part 1, Article 2804 Part 1, Article 2841 Parts 1 and 2, and Article 2843 CC. At the same time, the amendments do apply to medium-gravity offenses such as Article 282 Part 1, Article 2824, Article 3541 Parts 2 and 4, and Article 213 Part 1 CC, as well as to minor offenses such as Article 2842, Article 3541 Parts 1 and 3, Article 214, and Article 3301 CC.
In April, amendments were signed to Article 247 Part 5 of the CPC on conducting a trial in absentia of the defendant who is abroad and/or evading court appearance and who has not been charged for the same offense abroad. Previously, this provision applied only to cases of grave and especially grave crimes; now its application has been extended to a number of minor and medium-gravity crimes listed in 19 offenses, including several “anti-extremism,” counter-terrorism, and related provisions.
In late December, the President also signed amendments to Articles 73 and 81 of the Penal Enforcement Code (PEC). Under them, prisoners known to “espouse the ideology of extremism,” as well as all convicted foreign citizens and stateless persons, lose their right to request a transfer to a correctional facility located closer to their relatives’ place of residence.
In addition, in December, a bill “On Temporary Restrictive Measures with Respect to Persons Outside the Russian Federation Who Are Failing to Appear to Serve a Sentence” was passed in the first reading. It proposes a whole range of restrictions for those who are abroad and thus evading punishment imposed under any CC articles or under six politicized articles of the CAO.
These offenders will face fourteen restrictive measures, including refusal by the authorities to issue new documents or to perform notarial acts at consulates, refusal to provide e-government services, as well as the freezing of bank accounts, blocking of online banking access, and revocation of electronic signatures.
Information and Communications Legislation
A law banning the placement of advertising on resources of organizations designated as extremist, terrorist, or “undesirable” was signed in April. It should be reminded that the list of organizations designated as extremist includes the social networks Facebook and Instagram.
Also worth noting are legal innovations that were included in the same legislative package as the provision on searching for knowingly extremist materials (see above). Among them are administrative and criminal penalties for transferring SIM cards and providing logins and passwords for various websites to other people. Administrative liability was introduced for advertising VPN services, and the use of a VPN was added to the list of aggravating circumstances of any crime.
In July, amendments were signed to the federal laws “On Information, Information Technologies and Protection of Information” and “On State Support for Cinematography in the Russian Federation.” They prohibit the distribution, through “audiovisual services” (i.e., streaming platforms), of works that contain material discrediting and/or provoking the denouncement of “traditional Russian spiritual and moral values.” The relevant amendments to the CAO were submitted to the State Duma in December. They include plans to supplement the CAO with a new Article 13.35.1 establishing sanctions for failure to remove works that discredit “traditional values” after their distribution certificates have been revoked by the Ministry of Culture, as well as for failure to comply, or to comply in a timely manner, with Roskomnadzor orders to remove not only such works, but also works for which distribution certificates were never issued or were revoked for other reasons. In addition, liability under Article 13.50 CAO for failure to remove such materials is to be extended to social media platforms.
Regulating the Activities of “Foreign Agents”
A number of legal innovations in 2025 pertained to the legislation on “foreign agents.” In April, amendments were signed banning citizens listed in the register of “foreign agents” from teaching in state and municipal educational institutions and from conducting the rather broadly defined “educational outreach activities”. Organizations designated as “foreign agents” are no longer permitted to engage in educational activities in general. Previously, such restrictions applied only to work with minors. If an educational institution is included on the “foreign agent” register, its license must now be terminated.
Another law expanded the grounds for a “foreign agent” designation. These include “assistance in implementing decisions of international organizations in which the Russian Federation does not participate, or of foreign state bodies, if they are directed against the security of the Russian Federation” (if such actions are not qualified as a criminal offense). In addition, one can now be included in the Ministry of Justice register for “involving citizens, including minors,” in any of the activities of “foreign agents” listed in the law, or for financing such activities.
In June, amendments were signed tightening the sanctions under Article 19.34 Part 5 CAO for failure by “participants” and officials of “foreign agent” organizations (including unregistered associations) to inform others of their status. A new addition to parts 4 and 5 of the same article stipulated that informing about the status “not conforming to the approved format” is also punishable. In addition, a new Part 9 was added to Article 19.4 CAO on failure to comply with the lawful demands of the Ministry of Justice or interfering with an official in the performance of their duties. Article 19.34 CAO was also extended to those who commit an administrative offense while outside Russia.
In October, the President signed a law expanding criminal liability for “foreign agents.” Now, for criminal prosecution under Article 330.1 CC, it is sufficient to have one prior violation under Article 19.34 CAO within a year (rather than two), or to have a criminal record under Article 3301 CC.
Amendments to the Tax Code, adopted in November, established a single personal income tax rate of 30% for “foreign agents,” with a ban on tax deductions and loss of certain tax benefits.
Decisions of the Highest Courts
Constitutional Court Practice
We would like to point out two decisions adopted in 2025 by the Constitutional Court of Russia that concerned criminal cases involving public statements. The Constitutional Court did not demonstrate any novel approaches here but merely consolidated the existing practice.
In February, the Constitutional Court refused to accept for consideration a complaint by Bashkir activist Ramilya Galim (Saitova) challenging the wording of Article 280 CC and provisions of the Federal Law “On Countering the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and the Financing of Terrorism” that impose restrictions on defendants in extremism cases. In her complaint, Galim argued that the wording of Article 280 CC enables law enforcement agencies to punish citizens for statements deemed by experts to constitute calls to extremism, regardless of whether these statements were perceived by any audience as incitement to action or resulted in any harm. The Constitutional Court stated that the formula chosen by the legislators for Article 280 CC “does not mean that commission of this act entails no harm or a real threat of causing harm,” and contains no ambiguity “that would result in depriving a person of the opportunity to understand the unlawfulness of their actions and foresee liability for committing them.” The Constitutional Court did not consider the portion of the complaint concerning financial restrictions citing Galim’s failure to provide decisions by lower courts pertaining to her case in which these restrictions had been disputed.
In May, the Constitutional Court issued another refusal to consider a case in response to the complaint submitted by Aleksei Gorinov, former municipal deputy of Moscow’s Krasnoselsky District, convicted in 2022 under clauses “a,” “b,” and “d” of Article 2073 Part 2 CC. Gorinov complained that his rights had been violated both by Article 2073 CC itself and by provisions of the Federal Law “On the General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation.” According to his complaint, these provisions fail to protect deputies from prosecution for expressing opinions, since they establish liability for public insults, defamation, or other similar violations, which extends to deputies despite their status. The Constitutional Court held that deputies should not be exempt from liability for defamation or for “war-related fakes.” Moreover, with respect to the latter, the Constitutional Court indicated that the federal legislators “have the right and the duty to carry out legal regulation, including to establish legal liability, in order to prevent and suppress actions that encroach on the legal order, public order and security, and other values protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation — even if such actions outwardly appear to involve the exercise of the relevant constitutional rights.”
Supreme Court Clarifications on Extremist Crimes
On December 23, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia introduced another set of amendments to the resolution “On Judicial Practice in Criminal Cases Concerning Crimes of an Extremist Nature.” Most of the amendments are technical.
Among the substantive changes, we note the complete removal of the indication (based on European case law) that criticism of politicians and officials per se should not be treated as an action aimed at humiliating dignity. Instead, however, the Supreme Court briefly noted that criticism of “political or public figures in connection with their exercise of powers or the performance of other actions allowed for by their status” per se should not be treated as an action aimed at inciting hatred or enmity.
In addition, the Supreme Court provided, for the first time, its recommendations on applying Article 2824 CC. By analogy with other “speech-related” articles, the resolution states that the crime is considered completed from the moment any of the actions described in the legal provision are committed. One example of such actions is the display of tattoos, which is explicitly noted in the resolution. The Supreme Court also reiterated that the display of symbols is not punishable if “a negative attitude toward the ideology of Nazism and extremism is formed and there are no signs of propaganda or justification of Nazi and extremist ideology.”
[1] This approach to calculating the completion date of a crime, with respect to acts qualified under Articles 280 and 282 CC, was confirmed by the Supreme Court as early as 2011. In addition, in 2016, in its ruling on online speech qualified under Articles 2052 and 280 CC, the Supreme Court expressly stated that in such cases, the crime must be considered completed from the moment the statement was published online. See (in Russian): Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11 “On Judicial Practice in Criminal Cases Concerning Crimes of an Extremist Nature.” SOVA Center. 2011. June 20 (https://www.sova-center.ru/misuse/docs/2011/06/d21988/); SOVA Center commentary on the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on Extremist and Terrorist Crimes, SOVA Center. 2016. November 3 (https://www.sova-center.ru/misuse/publications/2016/11/d35761/).
