On June 16, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on countering “transnational repression” targeting journalists, human rights defenders, and activists in exile. Lawmakers named Russia as one of the main perpetrators and called for shielding political exiles from frozen bank accounts, denial of consular services, and passport revocations. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a similar resolution on June 25, with input from the platform for dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces. Meduza explains how these measures could affect the lives of Russians in Europe.

The key term in the resolutions is transnational repression. Here’s what it means

Transnational repression, as defined in the European Parliament’s resolution, refers to deliberate acts or threats directed at individuals or groups by their countries of origin.

Hanna Neumann, a German Green member of the European Parliament, stressed in her pre-vote report that more than a quarter of all states worldwide practice transnational repression, putting some 3.5 million people at risk. The authors identify Russia, Iran, China, and Belarus as the leading aggressor states.

The resolution separately catalogs the methods Russia uses against political opponents abroad: killings, assassination attempts, surveillance, digital harassment, intimidation, abductions, cyberattacks, intelligence operations, blackmail, smear campaigns, pressure on relatives, and trials in absentia.

Dmitry Gudkov, a politician who helped draft a resolution on the same subject at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, told Meduza that the European Parliament document is the first at such a high level to enshrine the idea that relatives of persecuted activists themselves qualify as victims of transnational repression.

The authors of the European Parliament resolution — among them dozens of nonprofits and European politicians — also say that Russia leads the world in the number of requests submitted through Interpol. According to an investigation by the BBC and the French outlet Disclose, Russia has spent the past 11 years requesting information from Interpol on the whereabouts of political opponents, businesspeople, and journalists who had gone abroad, on the pretext that they had committed crimes. Russia also has the most red notices overturned on appeal.

What changes does the European Parliament resolution propose?

The resolution calls for establishing a pan-European monitoring system and creating the position of coordinator on transnational repression within the European Council.

The document also calls on EU member states not to treat Interpol notices as automatic grounds for arrest, and proposes a mechanism for appealing red notices. It further calls for training police, courts, and other bodies across European countries to recognize politically motivated requests — and for suspending cooperation with countries that conduct trials in absentia or lack an independent judiciary.

The resolution also recommends that Interpol publish annual statistics for each type of notice, indicating which countries submitted them and how many were approved or rejected.

A separate section addresses administrative and financial instruments of pressure: freezing accounts, denying consular services, and revoking passports.

The resolution says EU member states must guarantee people in the “transnational repression risk group” access to at least one bank account — and must create mechanisms for emergency financial support in the event of a sudden asset freeze.

The resolution’s authors also propose that the European Commission develop mechanisms allowing victims of transnational repression to obtain temporary documents without having to contact their home country’s embassies or consulates.

The resolution also proposes that EU member states expel diplomats implicated in transnational repression. Gudkov recalled how, in 2024, staff at the Russian embassy in Thailand sought the extradition of members of the band Bi-2 to Russia. “If that had happened not in Thailand but somewhere in a European country, the diplomats would have been expelled immediately,” he said.

Asked whether European countries were ready to take such steps even at the risk of worsening ties with Moscow, Gudkov said that “the red lines were crossed long ago anyway,” and that EU countries have been regularly expelling Russian diplomats for years.

Why is another resolution needed at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe?

On June 25, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a similar resolution on transnational repression. The report, drafted with the participation of the Russian Democratic Forces platform, was presented by Cypriot deputy Konstantinos Efstathiou. The final version was adopted by a majority vote. Five deputies from Turkey voted against it; representatives of Italy, Switzerland, Poland, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg abstained.

According to Gudkov, he and his colleagues lobbied for the document, which is primarily intended to push European countries to expand and simplify programs for issuing “alien passports,” or “gray passports,” to victims of transnational repression. Such a document, as the politicians envision it, could be issued to someone legally residing abroad who has no way to contact their home country’s embassy to obtain or renew their passport.

Russia’s Antiwar Committee, which also submitted amendments to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution, writes that thousands of Russians abroad are being denied consular assistance. “Without a new passport, these people lose their residency permits, cannot cross borders, use bank accounts, or receive medical services. In other words, they are effectively left in the position of stateless persons. But the most frightening thing is the risk of deportation.”

Members of the Council of Europe had proposed issuing “gray passports” not only to refugees but also to those who have been subjected to transnational repression or have merely sought protection. That amendment was rejected during deliberations, and a softer formulation appeared in the final resolution: the call to “strengthen and simplify” the mechanisms for issuing “gray passports” was replaced with a recommendation to “consider the possibility” of introducing such a measure.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also called on member states to ensure “access to basic banking services” for those who have faced transnational repression, and recommended that states increase funding for services that process other countries’ requests concerning those countries’ political opponents.

The resolutions adopted by the European Parliament and PACE are nearly identical, but Gudkov argues that both documents matter. The European Parliament is a body of the European Union, while PACE unites 46 countries of the Council of Europe. Now that the Parliamentary Assembly has adopted the measure, its recommendations extend to Turkey, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and other countries that are not EU members.

“Think of it as laying a foundation. The next step will be lobbying for measures to be adopted at the parliamentary level in each individual country. But that is easier to do. Two resolutions at once essentially establish common rules. Of course, countries may take a long time to get there, but the direction has been set,” Gudkov said.

In his view, the more resolutions are adopted across different forums, the more grounds activists and lawyers have to cite them in specific court cases or when dealing with governments and private companies.

When can concrete results be expected?

Neither resolution is legally binding; both are more political signal than law. The language used in most provisions (“calls on,” “invites,” “considers it necessary”) leaves EU member states considerable freedom in how and when to implement the recommendations.

Gudkov acknowledges that quick results should not be expected, but considers it significant that the term — and a common legal framework — have appeared in the EU at all. “When you say ‘transnational repression,’ 90% of people think it’s about killings organized by the intelligence services,” he explains. “Now it has been spelled out — and the fact that we’re being denied passports is also a form of transnational repression.”

At the same time, the resolutions are being adopted amid a tightening of migration policy across the EU. Germany effectively wound down its humanitarian visa program for Russians in the fall of 2025, and France followed in the spring of 2026. On June 12, a new European pact on migration and asylum entered into force, permitting, among other things, the expulsion of a person to a “safe third country.”

Gudkov argues that if countries begin issuing Russians “gray passports,” the need for humanitarian visas may disappear: “Why humanitarian visas? You would simply need to request this document — a visa won’t be needed in each country.”

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, another participant in the Russian antiwar platform at PACE, says the standstill over documents and bank accounts for antiwar Russians has been resolved: “Yes, this is only the first step. There is still work ahead with national authorities, who will have to implement these decisions. Yes, it will be slow, procedural, and tedious. But it will happen. The ice has broken. We did it.”

Mikita Kuchinski