CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 2019

.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 4 February 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 22839/12 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich YELISOV against Russia lodged on 5 April 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the civil defamation proceedings brought by Mr   A.V., an official of the local administration of the town of Orekhovo ‑ Zuyevo, Moscow Region, following the publication in the Svoboda i Slovo newspaper of an article penned by the applicant. The article entitled “Married to Mafia?” suggested, in particular, that Mr A.V. had facilitated an act of bribery. It quoted an extract from the record of a witness interview with Ms   L.V. given to a prosecutor’s office’s investigator in the course of a pre ‑ investigation inquiry in which she had claimed that Mr A.V. had served as an intermediary in bribing an investigator. Before the domestic courts, Mr A.V. argued that the quoted extract from Ms L.V.’s witness interview tarnished his reputation. The applicant insisted that the claims should be rejected because the contested statement had been copied from the witness interview record the veracity of which should have been challenged in the course of the relevant criminal proceedings. The domestic courts found for the claimant for the reason that witness interview records could not be challenged before a court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered a retraction and awarded the claimant 2,000 Russian roubles to be paid by the applicant and the newspaper’s publisher each. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression on account of the defamation proceedings brought by Mr   A.V.? In particular, did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant’s 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)?