CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2018

.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 28 August 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6267/13 Sergey Dmitriyevich MAKSIMOV against Russia lodged on 7 December 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant signed a contract to engage a limited liability company, the “Volgograd Legal Сentre Man and Law ”, to study documents provided by him, to carry out a “journalistic investigation” and to prepare a legal opinion. The file contained documents about the change in ownership of a factory, including court documents and copies of complaints lodged with the domestic authorities. Mr S., the Legal Centre’s director, then wrote an article on the basis of the file entitled “Octopus-34, who can stop corruption and disregard for the law in Volgograd”. The article was published on the Legal Centre’s Internet site. The article suggested the involvement of two individuals (the new owners of the factory) in various crimes, including abduction, the misappropriation of a company and fraud. It criticised the domestic authorities for inaction in that regard and corruption.   A civil court then ordered S., the Legal Centre and the applicant to pay damages. The applicant had to pay 50,000 Russian roubles (approximately 1,288   euros) to each of the claimants. The court considered that the applicant had been the source of the information tarnishing the claimants’ reputation, also noting that he had given an interview (that he had been recorded) and that the content of the article had been shown to him before the publication. The appeal court upheld the fine stating the applicant had participated in the dissemination of the tarnishing information being its source. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular the right to impart information and ideas, at stake in the present case?   2.     If yes, was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? Did the domestic authorities adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for imposing fines on the applicant and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts in line with the Court’s case-law (see Terentyev v.   Russia , no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26   January 2017) and also having regard to the requirements imposed by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia in Ruling No. 21 of 27   June   2013? Was the applicant fined in relation to providing various documents to the author of the article and/or in relation to any specific utterances attributable to him (as recorded and then faithfully quoted in the article or as quoted from any document such as a written complaint to authorities)?