Auszug aus EGMR - 30635/13

(c) Regard being had to the specific procedural grievances (see above), was the decision-making process leading to the interference fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by the Convention (see, as a recent authority, Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 133, ECHR 2016)?.

Auszug aus EGMR - 30635/13

(b) Did the domestic courts adduce "relevant and sufficient" reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 196-97, 204-08 and 212-20, ECHR 2015 (extracts) as regards pertinent general principles and factors, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26 January 2017 as regards the approach), in particular having regard to the requirements imposed on the domestic courts by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia in its ruling no. 21 of 27 June 2013 (in particular, paragraphs 5 and 8)? Did they specify which parts of the impugned material were problematic? Did they draw their own conclusions from the linguistic report (see paragraph 23 of the Plenary Supreme Court's ruling no. 11 of 28 June 2011)?.