CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } Communicated on 5 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3642/10 Yuriy Ignatyevich MUKHIN against Russia lodged on 17 November 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE “Centre for independent journalism – Editorial Board of the Duel newspaper”, a not-for-profit partnership, was founded by S. In 1995 the Duel was registered as a mass media outlet. The applicant was Duel ’s editor ‑ in-chief and its director. The newspaper published a series of texts (edited by the applicant under the title “Death to Russia!”), including a “letter” from D. In parallel proceedings a court ordered the discontinuation of the mass-media-outlet status for the Duel , and banned as extremist the publication called “You voted, you have the right to judge”. In the meantime, the applicant was convicted under Article 280 of the Criminal Code for public calls for extremist activities via a mass media outlet, with the aim of undermining the foundations of the constitutional regime and the national security. The court rejected his argument that D.’s “letter” discussed an important public issue of a Jewish lobby in Russia and was a response to a previous publication criticising D.’s stance on the matter. The court referred to the fact that in 2008 D.’s text had been banned as “extremist material”. The court sentenced the applicant to a suspended prison term of two years and restricted his right to exercise leadership functions in a mass media outlet. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.1.     Was there an “interference” with Mr Mukhin’s freedom to impart information and ideas? Does he have standing to complain under Article   10 of the Convention in his own name on account of the court decision dated 20 March 2009 or the court decision of 26   November 2008 as upheld on 19   May 2009 (compare Obukhova v. Russia (dec.), no.   34736/03, 1   December 2005, and Kumok v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   39146/02, 6   May 2008)? What were the specific consequences of the court decision 26   November 2008, in particular within six months after 19 May 2009? In particular, did it entail cessation of the legal entity’s activity (compare Antilla v. Finland (dec.), no. 16248/10, §§ 24-25, 19 November 2013)?   1.2.     Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention either on account of the ban on the Duel’s circulation, or because of the banning as extremist of the publication “You voted, you have the right to judge”?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the criminal prosecution against the applicant for publishing D.’s text under the title “Death to Russia!”? In particular:   (a)     Was the “interference” “necessary in a democratic society”? Could the text, fairly construed and seen in its immediate or wider context, be seen as a direct or indirect call (in particular, by the applicant) for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance, for instance on account of sweeping statements attacking or casting in a negative light an entire ethnic or other group? Could the article, directly or indirectly, lead to any harmful consequences?   (b)     Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 196-97, 204 ‑ 08 and 212-20, ECHR 2015 (extracts) as regards pertinent general principles and factors, and Terentyev v. Russia , no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26   January 2017 as regards the approach)? In particular, what specific parts of D.’s text were problematic and held against the applicant? Did the courts give their own assessment of the available expert evidence and sufficiently specify what (type of) extremist activities the applicant had made calls for?