CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 19 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 77086/14 Viktor Anatolyevich SHENDEROVICH against Russia lodged on 5 December 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Viktor Anatolyevich Shenderovich, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Ms K. Kostromina, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 10 February 2014 the applicant’s article on the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi drawing certain parallels with the 1936 Olympics in Berlin was published on a blog on the website of the national radio station Ekho Moskvi . On 12 February 2014 he was briefly interviewed via Skype on the talk show Lobkov broadcast on the television channel “ Dozhd ”. He commented on the fact that his article had been criticised by certain officials. His comments included the following statement: “If I lived in a democratic country, then from today on I would have stopped working and spent the rest of my life living on fines [paid] by numerous scoundrels from Vasilyev and many State Duma deputies, who called me a fascist, to [the State ‑ owned TV channel] VGTRK; I would have lived on just these fines. But we understand in more or less a similar way what kind of country we live in, so in our case there is certainly no [use in talking about a] court; justice is not going to prevail in my case anywhere closer than in Strasbourg.” On 28 February 2014 the Vice-Chairman of the State Duma and the head of the parliamentary faction Edinaya Rossiya (United Russia), Mr.   V.   Vasilyev, brought a libel action against the applicant seeking 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 60,800 euros (EUR)) in damages. On 4 April 2014 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow ( Преображенский районный суд г. Москвы ) held a hearing in the applicant’s absence. He maintains that he has not been duly notified of the date of the hearing. The court considered the above statement to be “intentional public slander of the plaintiff Mr V. Vasilyev aimed at diminishing his integrity, dignity and reputation” and awarded him RUB   1,000,000 (approximately EUR 20,000) in damages. The applicant appealed. On 10 June 2014 the Moscow City Court ( Московский городской суд ) upheld the above judgment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of his freedom of expression. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention of a violation of his right to a fair trial QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s absence from the hearing of 4 April 2014 in the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow compatible with the requirements of the above provision of the Convention?