CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s5297CEC5 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF74FAE64 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8.5pt } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sD2AD8A50 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8.5pt; font-style:italic } .sDEA351A4 { width:7.61pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA04AE28A { width:35.22pt; display:inline-block } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF SAMOYLOVA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 49108/11)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Private life • Home • Non-consensual disclosure of applicant’s private data by a nationwide television-show reporting on the ongoing criminal proceedings against her husband, a retired prosecutor • Justified dismissal of claim about disclosure of applicant’s declared income data • A bona fide journalistic investigation into a prima facie disparity between an official’s assets or lifestyle and declared income • Prejudice to applicant’s enjoyment of the right to respect for her reputation limited and not extending beyond mere association as a spouse • Unjustified dismissal of claim about disclosure of applicant’s address, tax ID number and house interior images Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Civil courts’ failure to adequately examine aspects of applicant’s privacy invasion claims   STRASBOURG 14 December 2021 FINAL   14/03/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Samoylova v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georgios A. Serghides, President,   Paul Lemmens,   Dmitry Dedov,   María Elósegui,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   49108/11) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Marina Anatolyevna Samoylova (“the applicant”), on 19 June 2011; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 31 August and 9 November 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the alleged dissemination of private information about the applicant on national television and the alleged failure of the domestic courts to properly consider certain related claims. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow. The applicant was represented by Mr E. Markov, a lawyer practising in Ukraine, and then by Ms Y. Breyeva, a lawyer practising in Moscow, Russia. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the then Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.     At the material time the applicant was a lawyer admitted to the Russian Bar. Her husband was a prosecutor in Moscow and retired in 2006. Subsequently, he and several other people were charged with a number of criminal offences relating to large-scale embezzlement committed between January and March 2007 (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia , no.   57541/09, 24   January 2012 ). It appears that together with several law-enforcement officials he had participated, through a series of criminal-law measures carried out on spurious grounds, in the seizure and sale of multiple items of kitchen equipment from several public companies. The applicant was not accused of or charged with any criminal offence in relation to those criminal proceedings. 6.     In August 2009 the case against Mr Samoylov and his co-defendants was submitted for trial by jury. The presiding judge ordered that trial take place in camera, considering that the case file contained State secrets. 7 .     On 10 September 2009 Channel One, a nationwide television station, broadcast a popular television-programme Chelovek I Zakon . This programme contained a ten-minute report relating to the ongoing criminal proceedings and the sources of income and luxurious lifestyle of those defendants who had held public office: (a)     The report showed, for some ten seconds, a letter issued on 19   November 2008 by the tax authorities in Moscow addressed to an investigator in reply to his earlier request for information relating to Mr   Samoylov and his family. The letter contained Mr Samoylov’s full name, his official registration address in Moscow, his official taxpayer identification number and his declared income for 2004-07. The letter contained similar information in respect of the applicant and their son. In particular, it indicated that the applicant had declared income as follows: 21,903 Russian roubles (RUB) for 2004, RUB   18,671 for 2005, RUB   38,762 for 2006 and RUB   177,506 for 2007. It indicated the applicant’s official registration address in Moscow, which was the same as for her husband’s address. (b)     The report focused on the family’s country house located in a prestigious area. The image of the above letter accompanied the narrator’s text asserting that the value of such a house was 2,000,000 United States dollars (USD); that Mr Samoylov’s income, even if calculated together with his wife’s and son’s income, amounted to some RUB 2,000,000 for 2004-07 which would barely be enough to buy a “house for a hamster” in that area. It was then concluded as follows: “The inquiry confirmed: the prosecutors [Mr   Samoylov and another person] have been living through unlawful means”. (c)     The report also showed three photographs of the interior of the country house, specifically a whirlpool bath and a spiral staircase. 8.     The relevant part of the television programme may be summarised as follows: “Mr P. [the television-programme presenter]: How come prosecutors have houses [worth] USD 2,000,000? An interesting question ... [introductory summary of the programme; the video shows the entry to the Novyy Svet village] [a man’s voice]: Where did [those officials] take millions of dollars? ... Mr P.: ... We told you a little bit about this story two years ago. Today we can tell you almost everything. [narrator/journalist; the video showing the guarded entry to the village]: Journalists have no access whatsoever to this prestigious village near Moscow ... We had to be accompanied by investigators, to be able to see the main secret, that is [Mr   Samoylov’s] house ... [a voice]: These are nice houses, right? [narrator/journalist]: Here is this street, here is this house for USD 2,000,000. [an excerpt from another video of the exterior of the house is being shown] [a voice]: Samoylov’s house. At the moment of this inspection, the gate is open. [several photographs of the exterior of the house are being shown] [narrator/journalist]: What is so special? Why can’t a prosecutor have a cottage for USD   2,000,000? He is also a human being and would like to have a nice retirement. But here is an income certificate for Mr Samoylov and his family. [a copy of the tax authority’s letter of 19 November 2008 is shown with a zoom on the table representing income data and also showing the official registration address in Moscow] [narrator/journalist]: RUB 2,000,000 for four years. Taking into account the prices for the land in this village, [that sum] would only suffice for a home for a prosecutor’s hamster ... [Three photographs of the interior of the house are shown.] [narrator/journalist]: Moreover, Samoylov also has four apartments in [Moscow] ...” 9.     Arguing that various aspects of the above report were defamatory or otherwise in breach of Russian law, Mr Samoylov brought civil proceedings before the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow against the broadcasting company and Mr   P., the television-programme presenter and (allegedly) the author of the impugned report (see Samoylov v. Russia [Committee], no.   1750/11, §§ 12-15, 28 May 2019 ). The applicant also brought separate civil proceedings against the same respondents. Despite the applicant’s objection concerning the difference of the nature and scope of certain claims, the District Court subsequently decided to treat her and her husband’s claims together. 10.     In a document entitled “Statement of claim for the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation and compensation in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage” and during the proceedings the applicant referred to the following aspects: -     The report showed the letter of 19 November 2008, which contained data presented as the applicant’s income. In addition to that confidential income data for 2004-07, the report unlawfully (without her consent) indicated her full name, her home address in Moscow and her official taxpayer identification number. -     The income data were false. The applicant provided the District Court with a statement issued by the tax authority and indicating that she had actually earned nearly nine times more: she had declared RUB 113,003 for 2004; RUB 245,671 for 2005; RUB 270,000 for 2006; and RUB 1,405,560 for 2007. Moreover, in 2008 she had earned RUB 5,008,435. -     The alleged value of USD 2,000,000 for the country house (of which she owned a half, her husband the other half) had not been substantiated in the report and, in any event, had been exaggerated. The applicant submitted to the District Court a copy of the 2003 construction investment agreement under which she had paid USD 10,000 as the first instalment and had to pay USD 50,000 by end of 2005 for building and taking possession of the country house. With reference to a copy of another contract of sale, she explained that her husband had sold (it appears in 2005 for USD   50,000) a three-room flat in Moscow that he had inherited from his parents in order to complete the payment in respect of the country house. The applicant also submitted documents certifying that in April 2006 she and her husband had purchased the land under the country house. -     The presentation together of the above false or unsubstantiated data (the lower income and the high value of the property) implied that the applicant had received income from doubtful sources. In the applicant’s view, that false information and its juxtaposition had damaged her reputation in the eyes of her colleagues, clients and neighbours. -     According to the applicant, following the disclosure of her residential address in Moscow and the disclosure of the location of the country house, she had been harassed by numerous journalists at her place of residence. -     Photographs of the interior of her residence and a video were shown during the television-programme. It appeared that the television journalist had been allowed to make the recordings by the investigating officer. 11.     The applicant referred to Articles 23, 24 and 25 of the Russian Constitution (see paragraphs 18-20 below). In her final plea for relief in the statement of claim the applicant referred to Articles 150-52, 1100 and 1101 of the Civil Code and sought: (a)     a judicial order requiring the respondent to issue a retraction of the false and disparaging statements in relation to her income and the value of the country house; (b)     RUB 15,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 12.     The District Court examined the transcripts of the report and the documentary evidence submitted by the parties. 13 .     At the hearings the applicant made oral representations, clarifying her claims. She stated, in particular, that she had not given her consent to the disclosure of the information mentioned in the tax authority’s letter of 19   November 2008; that the disclosure in the report had not been justified and had caused her distress; that she was also seeking retraction of the information contained in that letter. Her home address had been disclosed so that she had become stigmatised by her neighbours and had been approached at her home by journalists. She had been a victim of an intrusion into her home and was seeking compensation for that too. 14 .     The applicant’s husband subsequently clarified his claims and the relief being sought, indicating, inter alia , that he was seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of the defamatory nature of certain statements in the report as well as on account of the disclosure of private information protected by the law. 15 .     By a judgment of 18 May 2010 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s and her husband’s claims. The court quoted Articles 150 and   151 of the Civil Code and certain paragraphs of the Plenary Supreme Court’s ruling of 24 February 2005 (see paragraphs 21 and 22 below) and its ruling of 10 October 2003 concerning the application of international treaties of the Russian Federation, including the Convention and the Court’s case-law under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. In particular, the court stated as follows: “Under paragraph 8 of [the ruling of 24 February 2005] courts should distinguish between cases relating to the protection of one’s honour, dignity and business reputation (Article 152 of the Civil Code) and cases relating to the protection of other intangible rights listed in Article 150 of the Code where those rights were violated by way of disseminating data the inviolability of which is specifically protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws. The dissemination of such data may cause non-pecuniary damage even where such data corresponds to reality and does not tarnish the plaintiff’s honour, dignity and business reputation. In particular, in cases concerning dissemination of data about a citizen’s private life it is necessary to take into account that a respondent may be required to pay compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the dissemination of such truthful data without the person’s and his or her legal representative’s consent (Articles   150 and 151 of the Civil Code) ... There are exceptions under section 49 § 5 of the [Mass Media Act] ... This provision corresponds to Article 8 of the [Convention]. A respondent must provide a retraction and pay compensation in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage where he or she disseminated information or statements about a plaintiff’s private life that are tarnishing and do not correspond to reality, as provided in Article 152 of the Civil Code.” Turning to the circumstances of the civil case the court held as follows: “The court makes the following findings in relation to the matter of retraction in respect of the statements mentioned above. ... Mr Samoylov was a public prosecutor and thus is a high-ranking official ... On 21   August 2006 he retired ... [His] high-ranking official position required him to comply with the law and to ensure transparency of his income and expenditure, especially in view of the anti-corruption programme that had been ongoing in the country at the time, up until present time ... The court considers that when dealing with Mr Samoylov’s financial situation, the author [of the report] used a comparison of extremes [ сравнение крайностей ] or hyperbole, which is a journalistic technique ... When showing the house and indicating its approximate value of USD 2,000,000 (which was an expression of the author’s opinion on the matter and, as such, does not amount to dissemination of statements tarnishing one’s reputation), it was stated that a prosecutor’s salary would suffice for buying a house only for a prosecutor’s hamster; then an income certificate relating to Mr Samoylov and members of his family was shown too ... The [evidence] confirms that that document corresponds to the document kept in the criminal case file, and that it was obtained lawfully ... The mass media have repeatedly reported, and continue to report, on the financial situation and revenue of high-ranking officials. Accordingly, the court considers it possible to refer to the case-law of the [European Court of Human Rights] and notes, in particular, that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation (see, mutatis mutandis , [the European Court’s] judgment of 26 April 1995 in Prager and Oberschlick v.   Austria ). Regard being had to the above, the court accepts that the exact value of the house owned by the plaintiffs, the exact amount of their incomes and the exact amount of their real property, in the circumstances of the case, are immaterial. The most important issue is that the value of their house does not correspond to their income. ... According to the construction investment agreement dated 5 September 2003 ... the value of the house was set at ... USD   60,000 ..., which did not include the cost of the interior, including the installation of a winding staircase and a whirlpool bath ... [One of the plaintiffs’ witnesses] submitted that [Mr Samoylov] had been offered a reduced price for the house because of his friendship with the management of the construction company ... [The court] finds it incompatible with the standing of the prosecutor. [The court] furthermore takes into account that the plaintiffs had their titles to the house and the land registered on the basis of the purchase agreement dated 4 April 2006 ... Accordingly, in addition to the amount paid under the construction investment agreement ... the plaintiffs paid a very significant sum of money which exceeded their income ... and the amount they received when they sold their three ‑ roomed flat ... for the equivalent of USD   50,000 ... Since the plaintiffs challenged the amounts indicated in [the tax authority’s letter of 19 November 2008], they have no basis for arguing the disclosure of protected taxation data. Moreover, pursuant to [the Mass Media Act], a journalist must obtain consent for the disclosure of information concerning a person’s private life from that person or his representative, except when such disclosure is necessary for the protection of public interests. [The court] considers that this rule applied when [the journalist] disclosed information concerning the income of the prosecutor’s family. This is justified by the public interest. The question raised in the television ‑ programme’s report about the disparity between a public servant’s income and the value of his property is a matter of general interest. The court considers that [Mr Samoylov’s] claims that the respondent party should retract the information presented in the television show that [Mr Samoylov] was involved in criminal activities and received unlawfully from an entrepreneur USD   500,000 should also be dismissed. Pursuant to Article 161 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a [person in charge of a pre-investigation inquiry] or an investigator can authorise disclosure of the data relating to the preliminary investigation of a criminal case, in so far as he or she considers such disclosure to be acceptable and if it does not impinge upon the investigation and does not violate the rights or legitimate interests of the persons involved in the proceedings. ... [the journalist] presented in the show evidence contained in the criminal case file, including a certificate showing the plaintiffs’ revenues, video footage featuring [Mr   Samoylov’s] house, and excerpts from telephone conversations. The journalist obtained that material lawfully, with the investigator’s approval. The journalist assessed that evidence. The veracity of his assessment cannot be subject to verification given that such verification should be carried out [in the course of the criminal investigation]. ... According to [the applicant] (Mr Samoylov’s wife and a plaintiff), the Moscow City Court is examining a criminal case against him ... [The court considers] that the journalist presented to the public his opinion that there was evidence confirming that [Mr Samoylov] was implicated in the commission of the offences he is charged with; [the journalist] commented on the criminal investigation, showed evidence collected and assessed it. Section 49 of the [Mass Media Act] requires a journalist to verify the information he or she is planning to disseminate. However, this obligation cannot be equated to the obligation to provide proof (including by way of documentary proof) in the same manner as it is provided for in procedural codes. The [journalist’s obligation] is related to a different scope of proof, foremost, given that a journalist has no access to the requisite mechanisms of obtaining and securing evidence. The opposite approach would restrict mass-media freedom, which would be unacceptable and would run counter to section 47 of the [Act]. The latter provides for a journalist’s right to seek, request, receive and disseminate information. A similar approach has been frequently put forward in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The court notes that a right to retraction under section 43 of the [Act] directly depends on whether the media outlet has proof that the information it disseminated corresponded to reality ... The court considers that [the journalist] produced evidence confirming his statements about [Mr Samoylov’s] involvement in illegal activities and dismisses the plaintiffs’ claims. The court has decided ... to dismiss [the plaintiffs’] claims for the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation and compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage ...” 16.     The applicant and her husband appealed. The applicant argued, inter alia , as follows: -     The first-instance court had failed to assess her claim relating to the respondent’s collection and dissemination of such protected data as the applicant’s full name and her home address. -     The court had provided no legal basis for its conclusion that the respondent had lawfully obtained the information contained in the income certificate (the tax authority’s letter of 19 November 2008). In August 2009 the criminal case had been set for trial and the trial judge had ordered that the trial take place in camera. Thus the investigating authority had no longer been in charge of the case file and could not have lawfully provided journalists with copies of any material from it. In any event, the impugned income certificate, the photographs or the video of its interior had never been admitted as evidence in the criminal proceedings and had not been assessed as such during the criminal trial which had ended in June 2010. 17 .     On 20 December 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. It stated that while the claimants had proved the dissemination of information tarnishing their honour and dignity ( распространение порочащих сведений ), this information had “corresponded to reality” ( соответствовала действительности ). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE relevant domestic law and practice Constitution of the Russian Federation 18 .     Pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution, everyone has a right to inviolability of his or her private life, personal and family confidentiality, and a right to the protection of his or her honour and good name. 19 .     Article 24 of the Russian Constitution prohibits collection, storage, use or dissemination of information about an individual’s private life, without his or her consent. 20 .     Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the inviolability of the home. None should be permitted to enter an individual’s home against the will of its residents, except in the cases prescribed by a federal law or by a court order. Civil Code of the Russian Federation 21 .     The relevant provisions of the Civil Code read at the material time as follows: “Article 150: Intangible rights “1.     Life and health, the dignity of an individual, personal integrity, honour and good name, business reputation, the inviolability of private life, personal and family confidentiality ... belong to an individual by birth or by law, are inalienable and are not transferrable by any other means ... 2.     Intangible rights are protected in accordance with this Code and other [relevant] laws ... as well as in such cases and within such limits where the use of the methods for the protection of ... the rights ... flows from the nature of the intangible right breached and the character of the consequences of such a breach.” Article 151: Compensation for non-pecuniary damage “If non-pecuniary damage (physical or psychological suffering) has been inflicted upon an individual by acts violating his personal non-pecuniary rights or encroaching upon other intangible interests belonging to the individual, as well as in other cases set out in the law, a court may order the perpetrator to pay monetary compensation for the said damage. In determining the amount of compensation, the court takes into account the degree of liability of the perpetrator and other relevant circumstances. The court also has to take into account the degree of physical and psychological suffering in the context of the individual features of the person on whom the damage was inflicted.” Article 152: Protection of honour, dignity and business reputation “1.     An individual has a right to claim in court retraction of information damaging his/her honour, dignity or business reputation, if the person having disseminated such statements has failed to prove that they corresponded to reality ... 5.     An individual concerned by the dissemination of damaging information ... has a right, along with the right to request a retraction of such information, to ask for damages and compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from such dissemination ...” 22 .     On 24 February 2005 the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia adopted Resolution no. 3 on judicial practice in cases concerning the protection of the honour and dignity of individuals and the business reputation of individuals or legal persons, in which it indicated (see paragraph 8) that cases concerning the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation should be differentiated from cases concerning the protection of other intangible rights whose inviolability is specifically protected by the Constitution of Russia and other law and the dissemination of which may cause non ‑ pecuniary damage even if the information in question is truthful and non-defamatory. In particular, in cases concerning the dissemination of information about the private life of an individual, it should be taken into account that unauthorised dissemination of even truthful information concerning private life may lead a court to award compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage resulting from the dissemination of such information (Articles 150 and 151 of the Civil Code). The only exception to this rule was when information about the private life of a plaintiff was disseminated with the aim of protecting some public interest under part 5 of section 49 of the Mass Media Act (see paragraph 23 below). Mass Media Act of 27 December 1991 23 .     Section 49 § 1(5) of the Act provides that a journalist is legally required to seek the consent of the interested person when disseminating information relating to that individual’s personal life, except when “it is necessary for protecting the public interest”. 24 .     Examples include a pressing social need for identifying and uncovering a threat to democratic society, the rule of law and civic society, public order or the environment (Ruling no. 16 of 15 June 2010 “On the application of the [Mass Media Act]” by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia, paragraph 25). Personal Data Act of 27 July 2006 25 .     Section 3 of the Act defines “personal data” as any information relating to a specific person or to a person that is identified on the basis of such information. It includes a person’s last name, name, patronymic, address, material, social or employment status, and his or her income. 26 .     A journalist can process such data, without the person’s consent, for the purposes of her or his professional activities and/or lawful activities of the mass-media outlet, provided that such processing does not violate the person’s rights (section 6 of the Act). 27 .     According to the Supreme Court of Russia, a taxpayer identification number does not contain information of a personal nature, relating to an individual’s family situation or relationships, and thus does not fall within the scope of protection of the inviolability of private life (decision no.   GKPIOO ‑ 402 of 30 May 2000). Code of Criminal Procedure 28 .     Article 161 § 3 of the Code provided at the time that an investigator could authorise disclosure of the data ( данные ) relating to the preliminary investigation of a criminal case, in so far as he or she considered such disclosure acceptable and if it did not impinge upon the investigation and did not violate the rights or legitimate interests of the persons involved in the proceedings. It was prohibited to disclose data on the private lives of those persons, without their consent. other Relevant material Fight against corruption United National Organisation 29.     The United Nations Convention Against Corruption entered into force in respect of the Russian Federation in 2006. Its main purpose is to promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat corruption more efficiently and effectively. In this connection, Article 8, which calls on States Parties to apply codes of conduct for public officials, states amongst other things that a State Party should “establish measures and systems requiring public officials to make declarations to appropriate authorities regarding, inter alia , their outside activities, employment, investments, assets and substantial gifts or benefits from which a conflict of interest may result with respect to their functions as public officials”. Article 52 §   5 states that “each State Party shall consider establishing, in accordance with its domestic law, effective financial disclosure systems for appropriate public officials”. 30 .     Further recommendations were provided in the Technical Guide to the Convention (2009) and included the following: disclosure covers all substantial types of incomes and assets of officials (all or from a certain level of appointment or sector and/or their relatives); disclosure forms allow for year-on-year comparisons of officials’ financial position; disclosure procedures preclude possibilities to conceal officials’ assets through other means or, to the extent possible, assets held by those against whom a state party may have no access; a reliable system for income and asset control exists for all physical and legal persons – such as within tax administration – to access in relation to persons or legal entities associated with public officials; officials have a strong duty to substantiate/prove the sources of their income; to the extent possible, officials are precluded from declaring non ‑ existent assets, which can later be used as justification for otherwise unexplained wealth. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 31.     In 2011 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published a document entitled “Asset Declarations for Public Officials: A Tool to Prevent Corruption”. According to that document, some of the declaration systems covered not only public officials but also certain persons related to them. Usually such related persons were not required to file declarations themselves; rather, public officials were required to provide certain data about them. The scope of this information was usually narrower than that relating to the public official him-/herself. One of the reasons for requesting this information was to prevent public officials from hiding their income and assets under the names of other people. Another one was the realisation that the private interest of a person in some way related to the public official often had the same potential to interfere with the discharge of public functions as a private interest held by the public official directly. The most common categories of persons whose data were to be disclosed in public officials’ declarations reflected the same underlying principle, that is to cover information about the persons who formed the closest circle in the private life of an official (starting with the narrowest to the broadest circle starting with spouses and/or domestic partners and children). At the time, in a few countries – for example Albania, Belarus, and Kazakhstan – not only was information about spouses/relatives requested in the declaration submitted by the public official, but these persons had to submit their own declarations. Some systems asked for data about related persons when notice of a possible violation was received or a probe was initiated. For example, in Slovenia, if the comparison of the data submitted with the actual situation provided reasonable grounds for an assumption that the functionary was transferring his/her property or income to family members for the purpose of evading supervision, the Commission of the National Assembly could, at the proposal of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, also request the functionary to submit data for his/her family members. Group of States against Corruption 32.     The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) monitors States’ compliance with the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption standards. It works in cycles, known as evaluation rounds, each covering specific themes. Following an on-site visit, the GRECO evaluation team (“GET”) produces an evaluation report, which may include recommendations requiring action to be taken by the State to ensure compliance therewith. 33 .     It follows from GRECO’s General Activity Report for 2019 “Anti ‑ corruption trends, challenges and good practices in Europe & the United States of America” that financial disclosure obligations are a tool of transparency; that, as regards persons with top executive functions in central governments, almost all of the countries reviewed were recommended to consider widening the scope of declarations of interests to include information on spouses and dependent family members. As regards declarations of assets, income, liabilities and interests, GRECO recommended to (i) introduce a robust, effective and regular system of declaration, including for the top management; (ii) ensure information is publicly and easily accessible and that the system is effectively implemented; and (iii) consider extending them to spouses and dependent family members. Protection of personal data 34.     For a summary of relevant information concerning the protection of personal data (including individual taxation information) and the exercise of freedom of expression by media outlets, see Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, §§ 55-82, 27 June 2017. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 35.     The applicant complained that the civil courts had not examined part of her claims relating to the collection and dissemination of private information, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Admissibility 36.     It has not been disputed that the civil limb of Article 6 of the Convention was applicable to the domestic proceedings concerning claims for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and for a retraction in respect of false and defamatory statements and disclosure of private information and personal data. The Court finds no reason to hold otherwise (see also paragraphs 58-66 below). 37.     The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicant 38.     The applicant submitted that in its television programme the media outlet had disseminated false data about her income while making an unsubstantiated and incorrect statement about the high value of the country house she owned together with her husband. The juxtaposed presentation of those two false statements had suggested that the source(s) of the applicant’s income had been doubtful. Such a presentation had thus been defamatory. 39.     The civil courts had failed to deal with her other claims relating to the collection and dissemination of her full name and home address. The courts had failed to assess the video of the exterior of the country house and photographs showing the interior of her residence. The applicant asserted that the civil courts had violated her right of access to a court or, at least, her right to a reasoned judgment, specifically as regards the omission to deal with certain claims. (b)    The Government 40.     The Government submitted that the applicant had brought a specific type of tort action, namely a defamation lawsuit under Article 152 of the Civil Code. It provided protection against an affront to an individual’s honour, dignity and reputation and afforded such form of redress as a judicial order with a specific form of redress such as requiring a respondent to retract the disparaging statements where they did not correspond to reality ( не соответствовали действительности ). The scope of factual and legal matters in that type of case was limited to determining that the respondent had disseminated statements about the claimant, and that such statements were disparaging and did not correspond to reality (see paragraph 22 above). All the other claims or arguments put forward by the applicant had been outside the scope of a defamation case. In particular, if the applicant had intended to determine the origin of certain information and to sue the public officials who had provided it to the media outlet, she could have sought judicial review of unlawful actions on the part of public officials through the procedure under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The Court’s assessment (a)    General principles 41 .     As to the issue of unfairness resulting from the reasoning adopted by the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that it is not for it to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, for instance where, in exceptional cases, such errors may be said to constitute “unfairness” incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention (see Bochan   v.   Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015). 42 .     The Court also reiterates that according to its established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no.   30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999 ‑ I). Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by the complainant, this obligation presupposes that parties to judicial proceedings can expect to receive a specific and explicit reply to the arguments which are decisive for the outcome of those proceedings (see, among other authorities, Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9   December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303 ‑ A, and Higgins and Others v. France , 19   February 1998, §§   42-43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I). Moreover, in cases relating to interference with rights secured under the Convention, the Court seeks to establish whether the reasons provided for decisions given by the domestic courts were automatic or stereotypical (see, mutatis mutandis , Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no.   25358/12, §   210, ECHR 2017). (b)    Application of the principles in the present case 43.     The applicant and her husband initiated separate proceedings on account of the impugned television report. The nature and scope of their claims overlapped in part as regards the factual basis and/or legal grounds. The District Court decided to process all the claims within one case. 44.     In the document entitled “Statement of claim for the protection of honour, dignity and business reputation and for the compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage”, the applicant referred to the rights protected by Articles 23-25 of the Russian Constitution (see paragraphs 18-20 above). The final plea for relief relied on Article 152 of the Civil Code relating to the protection of honour, dignity and reputation as well as on the general provision of Article 150 of the Civil Code which, inter alia , protects an individual’s privacy (see paragraph 21 above). The applicant also referred to Article 151 concerning compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The plea ended with the two types of redress being sought: (i) one, which was specific for a claim under Article 152 of the Civil Code – for the retraction of false and disparaging statements arising from the assessment of her low income and high value of the residence; (ii) for the compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 45.     During the trial the applicant specified that she was seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of the distress caused by the unlawful and unjustified breach of privacy consisting, inter alia , of the collection and disclosure of her full name, her full residential address and photographs of the interior of her country house (see paragraph   13 above). The Court also notes that the amended claim submitted on behalf of the applicant’s husband contained a specific note that he was seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in relation to the breach of privacy as well as on account of defamation (see paragraph 14 above). 46.     In the Court’s view, the applicant’s arguments leading to the plea mentioned above were related to both the action under Article 152 of the C