CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 15 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 3402/15 Andrey Borisovich STOLBUNOV against Russia lodged on 26 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to freedom of expression. The applicant, a human rights defender, made a speech at a conference revealing some allegedly illegal activities of a regional official. This official sued him in defamation and recovered a substantial amount of damages. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as regards the finding of the applicant’s liability in defamation? In particular, did the national courts carry out a proper analysis of allegedly defamatory statements, arguments, and evidence put forward by the parties, and did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 196, 15   October 2015, and, in the Russian context, OOO Ivpress and Others v.   Russia , nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, §§ 71-79, 22   January 2013)? Was the amount of compensation to be paid by the applicant proportionate? (see Skałka v. Poland , no. 43425/98, § 41-42, 27   May 2003)