On September 10, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its judgment in the Pryanishnikov v. Russia case, Application No. 25047/05. In a Press Release issued by the Registrar of the ECtHR, the findings of the case were summarized. In this case, the applicant, Sergey Viktorovich Pryanishnikov, a Russian national, challenged the refusal by domestic courts to grant him a film reproduction license because he was suspected of producing or distributing pornography. Pryanishnikov is the producer of erotic films and owns the copyright to over 1,500 such films. He applied to the Russian Ministry of Press, Broadcasting and Mass Media in 2003 for a film reproduction license and it was denied because the Ministry claimed that Pryanishnikov was “involved in investigative measures concerning the illegal production, advertising and distribution of erotic and pornographic material and films,” which is an offense under the Russian Criminal Code. Pryanishnikov challenged the decision in the Russian Commercial Court of Moscow, Appellate Court, and Court of Cassation, all of which upheld the Ministry’s refusal to grant the license. The charges of producing/distributing pornography were dropped. The ECtHR found that “the refusal to issue a film reproduction licence had amounted to an interference with Mr Pryanishnikov’s freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and had ‘pursued legitimate aims’ for the purposes of Article 10 § 2: protecting morals and the rights of others, in particular children. When determining whether the interference was also ‘necessary in a democratic society,’ the Court established that the domestic judgments – in so far as they relied on a suspicion regarding Mr Pryanishnikov’s involvement in producing and distributing pornography—had been based on assumptions rather than reasoned findings of fact.” The ECtHR observed that “the domestic courts had not weighed the impact which the refusal of a film reproduction licence would have on Mr Pryanishnikov’s ability to distribute all the films for which he had distribution certificates or on his freedom of expression in general. The courts had therefore failed to recognise that the case involved a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the need to protect public morals and the rights of others, and had failed to perform a balancing exercise. The Court considered that such a far-reaching restriction on his freedom of expression had not been justified. There had been therefore no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.”