CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 12 December 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35023/13 NOVAYA GAZETA and Others against Russia lodged on 24 April 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil defamation proceedings brought by Mr   B.Ya. and Mr V.Ya. following publication in a national newspaper published by the applicant company of an article penned by the second and third applicants. The claimants are brothers and founders of the “Nashi” political youth movement; Mr V.Ya. at the material time was the head of the Federal Youth Agency. The “Nashi” movement actively shared an anonymously distributed video that pictured three persons of opposition views in a negative light and was recorded unbeknownst to them; Mr B.Ya. published disparaging comments on those persons’ character on the Nashi website. The impugned article appeared as a reaction to and a commentary on the situation. It contained a paraphrased quote from Mr   B.Ya.’s article ascribed to Mr V.Ya. and a suggestion that Mr V.Ya. had been in direct contact with those who had recorded the video. A few days later the newspaper published a retraction stating that Mr V.Ya.’s name had appeared in the article by mistake as in fact it had concerned Mr B.Ya.; the newspaper’s editors offered their apologies to Mr V.Ya. Around the same time Mr Sh., a journalist, referred to the same situation in his radio broadcast and stated that Mr V.Ya. had committed criminal acts by interfering with others’ privacy. Mr B.Ya. and Mr V.Ya. brought defamation claims, in particular, against the applicants and Mr Sh. Following two rounds of examination of the claims in two instances, the domestic courts found for the claimants for the reason that the impugned article and Mr Sh.’s radio broadcast “had contained accusations of a violation of the right to privacy” in respect of the claimants, one of whom was the head of the Federal Youth Agency, and had pictured them as persons involved in unlawful activities. The applicants’ reference to the fact that the impugned parts of the article had not tarnished the claimants’ reputation and had been based on Mr B.Ya.’s words and on the journalists’ value judgments were dismissed. The courts ordered a retraction and awarded Mr V.Ya. non-pecuniary damages, in particular, in the amount of 50,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to be paid by the applicant company and RUB   10,000 by the second and third applicants, respectively. Mr B.Ya. did not seek non-pecuniary damages. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account of the defamation proceedings brought by Mr B.Ya. and Mr V.Ya.? Was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article   10 § 2? Did the domestic courts draw a distinction between the statements contained in the impugned article by the second and third applicants and those broadcast on the radio by a third person? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article   10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia , no.   39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia , no. 25147/09, §   24, 26   January 2017)?   APPENDIX       ANO “Redaktsionno-Izdatelskiy Dom ‘Novaya Gazeta’” is a legal entity incorporated under Russian law.       Mr Aleksandr Leonidovich LITINSKIY is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow.       Ms Lola Madzhidovna TAGAYEVA is a Russian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Moscow.   The applicants are represented by Mr Ya. Kozheurov, a lawyer practicing in Moscow.