CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s330D47D5 { width:214.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 50228/06 Anna Vladimirovna SMIRNOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helen Keller, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The above application was lodged by Ms Anna Vladimirovna Smirnova, a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lived in Vologda (“the applicant”). On 2 June 2016 the applicant informed the Court that she had changed her name to Anna Vladimirovna Sankina. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyuskin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicant was an editor of the newspaper Nash region plus . 5.     On 15 February 2006 the newspaper published an article in which it reprinted the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands ‑ Posten on 30   September 2005. The cartoons were reprinted in the form of a collage. Some parts of the cartoons were not visible, being covered by the neighbouring images. 6.     The issue of the newspaper with the article had a print run of 2,500   copies and was distributed in the Vologda region. 7.     On 17 February 2006 the Vologda regional prosecutor’s office brought criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 282   §   2   (b) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. 8.     The applicant stood trial before the Vologda Town Court. According to the charges, being responsible in her capacity as the editor of the newspaper Nash region plus for compliance with legal requirements for mass media, the applicant had committed acts aimed at inciting hatred and enmity, and disparaging a group of persons on the basis of attitude to religion, through her official position and with the use of mass media. 9.     On 14 April 2006 the Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to a fine in the amount of 100,000 Russian roubles. 10.     On 25 May 2006 the Vologda Regional Court altered the judgment and ordered that the applicant be relieved of the punishment in view of the change in the circumstances since the applicant no longer posed a public menace. The Regional Court upheld the judgment in the remaining part. COMPLAINT 11.     The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against her had violated her right to impart information. THE LAW 12.     On 20   January 2016 the Court decided to give notice of the applicant’s complaint to the Government. 13.     On 17   May 2016 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 19   May 2016 to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 21   July 2016. 14.     On 2   June 2016 the applicant informed the Court that she wished to withdraw her application because she considered that her claims had been resolved. 15.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. It is therefore appropriate to strike the application out of its list of cases. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6   October 2016.   Fatoş Aracı   Helen Keller Deputy Registrar   President