CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 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 } .s245ADC1D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:0.05pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 30 June 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 830/14 Sergey Viktorovich OVINNIKOV against Russia lodged on 6 December 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergey Viktorovich Ovinnikov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Kazan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 18 August 2012 the applicant, when crossing a street with his acquaintances Sh., H., E. and M., started to record on his mobile phone camera police officer R. who apparently asked a passer-by to present his identity documents but refused to present his police badge. Having noticed that he was being recorded, police officer R. approached the applicant, apparently beat him in front of witnesses, handcuffed him with the help of another police officer, searched him and seized all the cash that the applicant had. Then he took the applicant, Sh. and H. to a police station. According to the applicant, there he was searched again, his identity documents were seized and recordings on his mobile phone were erased. Having spent several hours in detention, the applicant, Sh. and H. were released. However, their detention was not recorded and the applicant’s identity documents and money were not returned to him. On 19 August 2012 the applicant underwent medical examination which stated numerous bruises and abrasions on his neck, back and extremities. On the same date the applicant sought to institute criminal proceedings against police officer R. Initial refusals to institute criminal proceedings were a number of times quashed by a higher prosecutor. The most recent decision appears to be taken on 3 April 2013. The applicant then obtained authorisation from the local authority, Kazan Ispolkom, to conduct an assembly on 24-26 August 2012 in order to protest against the police brutality. A number of persons who had witnessed the applicant’s apprehension on 18 August 2012 participated in the assembly. On 26 August 2012 one of the participants held a poster with a photograph of police officer R. signed as follows: “In the photograph wearing purple uniform is a particularly dangerous member of the organised criminal group of policemen acting under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Tatarstan. This person is aggressive and inadequate”. Police officer R. brought defamation proceedings against the applicant claiming that the text on the poster was insulting and disparaging his dignity and honour. On 31 January 2013 the Zavolzhskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk dismissed the claim. Having regard to police officer R.’s positive appraisal by his superiors, the court found that the poster contained information disparaging the claimant’s honour, dignity and professional reputation. At the same time, it found no evidence that the applicant either held the poster in question or, being the organiser of the assembly, was responsible for the content of posters held by other participants. Police officer R. appealed. On 23 April 2013 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court partially quashed the judgment of 31 January 2013. The appellate court upheld the findings of the first-instance court that the information in question was disparaging for the claimant’s honour, dignity and professional reputation. At the same time the appellate court found that, since the applicant was the organiser of the assembly in question, and the assembly was triggered by the incident between the applicant and police officer R., the applicant was responsible for the dissemination of the information irrespective of the fact whether he had held the poster or not. The appellate court thus granted the claim and ordered the applicant to pay 3,000 roubles for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant brought cassation appeal. On 10 June 2013 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court refused to examine the cassation appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the domestic courts unduly found him responsible in the defamation proceedings, and, in particular, that they failed to distinguish between a statement of fact and a value statement. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?   In particular,   (1)     did the domestic courts duly assess the fact that the applicant, although being the organiser of the assembly, did not hold the poster in question?   (2)     was the characterisation of the utterance in question as a statement of fact, rather than value judgment, justified?