CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 12 July 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7305/14 Marianna Nikolayevna CHERNOPAZOVA against Russia lodged on 17 January 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Freedom of expression . In 2012 and 2013, the applicant submitted electronic complaints about the fact that the real estate registration office in the Lazarevskiy District in Sochi had no available time slots for the following two months, while private intermediaries offered to submit documents without wait in exchange for a considerable fee. A copy of her complaint was sent to the head of the Lazarevskiy office who sued the applicant in defamation and also instituted criminal proceedings against her for libel. She was found responsible for disseminating unverified information in both sets of proceedings (final decisions: Krasnodar Regional Court, 25 July 2013, and Lazarevskiy District Court, 24 October 2013). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES As regards the finding of the applicant’s liability in defamation and her subsequent conviction of libel, was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts apply the requirements of protection under Article 10 of the Convention weighed in the light of the applicant’s right to notify competent State officials about the conduct of civil servants which to them appears irregular or unlawful (see Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC] , nos.   17224/11, § 82, 27 June 2017, and the case-law cited therein)? Did the courts take into account the findings of the inquiry into the applicant’s complaint? Was the criminal sanction proportionate to the legitimate aim that was pursued?