CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 }   Communicated on 26 January 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35839/13 Igor Nikolayevich SAVITSKIY against Russia lodged on 13 May 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Igor Nikolayevich Savitskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Pskov. He is represented before the Court by Mr I.V. Popov, a lawyer practising in Pskov. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.   On 31 May 2012 in a speech delivered during a parliamentary session, the applicant – who was then a parliamentarian in the Pskov Regional Parliamentary Assembly ( Псковское областное Собрание депутатов ) − addressed another parliamentarian (Mr S.) with the following phrase: “But you’ve been G.’s stooge, always − the whole region knows that!” ( “А вот то, что Вы были “шестеркой” Г., всегда, - это тоже знает вся область!” ). 4.     The above phrase was uttered in the context of debating the regional prosecutor’s request to revoke Mr G.’s status as a parliamentarian due to violations of the restrictions inherent in that position. 5.     Mr S. sued the applicant for defamation. After examining the case, in its judgment of 30 August 2012 the Pskov City Court found at the outset that the word “stooge” (“ шестерка ”) had pejorative connotations and could therefore be classified as an insult. The applicant’s argument that he had used the impugned phrase to express his opinion of Mr S. as a politician dependent in his political activities on Mr G. was dismissed by the court with the reasoning that the phrase was not relevant to the main subject of debate and had no basis in any opinions voiced earlier in the session. It therefore concluded that an uninformed audience watching the session online would understand the applicant’s utterance in a pejorative sense. 6.     The court then cited Resolution no. 3 of the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 24 February 2005 stating that an opinion expressed in a defamatory manner could entail an obligation to pay compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the person concerned. At the same time the court took into account that Mr S.’s status as a politician afforded wider limits of acceptable criticism, and that the main subject of the parliamentary debates had been a matter of public concern. 7.     Finally, the court arrived at the conclusion that since the subject of the debates had had nothing to do with Mr S. personally, his private interests should prevail. Taking into account the fact that the parliamentary session had been broadcast live online, and that both parties involved in the dispute were politicians, the court awarded Mr S. compensation in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage in the amount of 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB ‒approximately 496 euros (EUR)). 8.     The applicant appealed, claiming that the court’s finding of liability had been based on the tone, but not the substance, of his utterance and that such interference was not necessary in a democratic society. 9.     On 13 November 2012 the Pskov Regional Court reaffirmed the first ‑ instance court’s findings of fact and law and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It dismissed the applicant’s argument (see paragraph 6 above) with the reasoning that the word “stooge” in the context of a parliamentary debate could not have been understood in the sense which the applicant claimed to have intended (see paragraph 5 above) since the applicant had failed to do anything to avoid the potential ambiguity. COMPLAINT 10.     The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to freedom of expression was breached. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular the freedom to hold opinions and the right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?