The 2003 parliamentary election campaign was held without violating the Convention on Human Rights, which declares the right to free elections. This decision was made by the ECHR on the complaint of the CPRF, Yabloko and several voters who challenged the results of the 2003 parliamentary elections. The ECHR also found no violation of the right to an effective remedy in the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which rejected the oppositionists' complaint.

Two political parties, as well as Sergei Ivanenko, Dmitry Muratov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, Irina Khakamada, Yevgeny Kiselyov and Vadim Solovyov appealed to the Strasbourg court in 2005. According to the applicants, the election campaign on Russian television was conducted predominantly in favor of United Russia, which contradicts domestic legislation. And the Supreme Court approached the case in a biased manner.

But the ECHR decided that the legislation in force at the time gave the opposition minimal access to television airtime and declared the principle of neutrality of state media, while the plaintiffs did not provide evidence of pressure on journalists by the state. Full equality was not achieved in the coverage of the campaign on TV, but this is not enough to recognize that the elections were "not free" from the point of view of the Convention. The ECHR also did not find any significant shortcomings in the procedure for considering the Supreme Court's case: the court's selective examination of the evidence presented by the applicants cannot testify to the ineffectiveness of this legal mechanism.

"This is an unconditional victory," says Andrey Fedorov, head of the office of the Russian Commissioner in Strasbourg. He notes that the court's decision reflects all the arguments that the Commissioner had previously made. This decision shows that the genre of endless reproaches from the opposition for violating its rights has exhausted itself, rejoices Irina Yarovaya, member of the presidium of the General Council of United Russia and State Duma deputy.

The ECHR made a political, not a legal decision, the CPRF's chief lawyer Solovyov is sure: the court did not dare to create a precedent that could bring down the entire legal system of the country. Recognizing the 2003 elections as not complying with the European Convention would call into question the laws adopted by the State Duma of the fourth convocation, he reminds. The complaint will definitely be challenged, Solovyov promises. The applicants will carefully study the ECHR's arguments to understand in which direction to move forward (now the CPRF is preparing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court on the 2011 elections, also with an eye on the proceedings in Strasbourg). But it is also becoming clear that challenging the election results in court does not produce results, Solovyov concludes. Consequently, it is necessary to move on to other forms and methods of work: participation in the protest movement, creation of a coalition with other representatives of the opposition.

And Strasbourg didn't help either