CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 mars 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4E8A404A { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB06CCEC3 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:left } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 33288/02 by Olga MELKUMOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25   March 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   E. Steiner ,   Mr   K. H ajiyev , judges , and   Mr   S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 August 2002, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Olga Vsevolodovna Melkumova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in the town of Dubna of the Moscow Region. She is the editor-in-chief of a local newspaper Peace Square ( «Площадь Мира» ). The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr   D.   Shishkin, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The respondent Government are represented by Mr   P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 5 January 2001 the applicant’s newspaper ran an article by Ms A. “How They Made Decisions about the Lease” that related the discussion in the Dubna town council concerning commercial results of the lease of municipal property. The article concluded a series of publications questioning the efficiency of the use of municipal property as a source of budget revenues. The publications exposed councillor Madfes as an employee of a law firm that acted as a middleman between the municipal administration and tenants negotiating conditions of leases on behalf of the administration and collecting a fee for it. On 15 January 2001 councillor Madfes brought an action against the applicant and editors of the newspaper for the protection of his honour, dignity and professional reputation and for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Mr Madfes argued that the following extracts were untrue and damaged his honour and dignity: “...I consider it necessary to state: the lawyer Madfes intentionally misleads councillors... As to councillor Madfes’s referring to author(s) of publications as ‘crooks’, it points toward a low cultural level of this lawyer...” On 18 December 2001 the Dubna Town Court of the Moscow Region determined the action. Upon questioning of witnesses the court found that the defendants failed to show that Mr   Madfes “had intentionally misled councillors” because before the court the councillors unanimously denied that they had been misled by statements of Mr Madfes. According to the court, the defendants failed to demonstrate the low cultural level of Mr   Madfes because his professional and educational credentials submitted to the court proved otherwise. Without analysing the second extract the court reached the conclusion that both extracts contained untrue information and damaged the plaintiff’s honour, dignity and business reputation. The court ordered the applicant to pay RUR 3,000 (EUR 110) and the editors to pay RUR 5,000 (EUR 183) to Mr Madfes, as well as to publish a retraction in the newspaper. On 4 March 2002 the Moscow Regional Court upheld on the applicant’s appeal the judgment of 18 December 2001. On 28 August 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, the judgments of 18   December 2001 and 4 March 2002 on the ground that the courts had failed to draw a distinction between statements of facts and value-judgments. The case was remitted for a new examination. On 14 May 2003 the Dubna Town Court ordered a psycho-linguistic expert examination of the publication and suspended the proceedings pending its outcome. On 4 September 2003 Mr Madfes, the plaintiff, withdrew his action against the applicant and editors of the newspaper. On 23 December 2003 the Dubna Town Court formally closed the proceedings and ordered Mr Madfes to return RUR 3,000 to the applicant and RUR 5,000 to the editors and to bear the legal expenses. On 2 March 2004 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 23   December 2003 in the final instance. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention about a violation of her right to impart information and ideas without interference by state authority. THE LAW On 20 October 2003 the Government indicated that the application was not fit for examination by this Court because the proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts. On 19 February 2004 the applicant informed the Court of her acceptance of the Government’s objection. She also confirmed that the action against her had been terminated because the plaintiff had withdrawn it and that she had no intention to pursue the application before this Court. The Court recalls Article   37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows: “1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” The Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case. In these circumstances it considers that the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Søren Nielsen   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President