CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 30 August 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 29131/14 Maksim Vyacheslavovich PRIVEZENTSEV against Russia lodged on 31 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Freedom of expression . The applicant is a former president of an association of co-owners of a block of flats ( товарищество собственников жилья ). His successor, Ms Z., was removed from her post by a decision of the general assembly after it had been discovered that she had wasted a large amount of the association’s funds. Ms Z. blamed the applicant for her removal and, using her friendship with the deputy police minister’s wife, refused to surrender the keys and the association’s seal and secured the intervention of the high-ranking police officials in large numbers. The applicant sent a letter to the Russian President to complain about the deputy minister’s misuse of his official position in support of his wife’s friend in a civil dispute. The deputy minister retaliated with criminal proceedings on the charge of false denunciation. The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to a fine (final decision: Moscow City Court, 21   November 2013). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES As regards the applicant’s conviction, 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?