CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } Published on 19 February 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20639/15 Olga Alekseyevna LARINA against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 30 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern alleged violations of the right to freedom of expression of the applicants who were sued in civil proceedings for the statements they had made orally or in social media on matters of public debate and subsequently held liable for defamation of a State body or State officials. A short summary of each application is provided in the Appendix. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as regards the finding of the applicants’ liability in defamation proceedings? In particular: (a)     Was that interference with the applicants’ rights “prescribed by law” in terms of Article 10 § 2? (b)     Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? (c)     Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? In particular: Did the national courts carry out a proper analysis of the allegedly defamatory statements, arguments, and evidence put forward by the parties? Did they distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments? Did the courts take into account the applicants’ position, the plaintiffs’ position and the subject-matter of the statements?     APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth/ Registration date Place of residence Nationality   Representative’s name Location Subject-matter Final decision     1. 20639/15 Larina v. Russia 20/04/2015 Olga Alekseyevna LARINA 1943 Skhodnya, Moscow Region Russian   Oleg Aleksandrovich PISAREV Moscow Defamation civil (State officials) The applicant was the director and a shareholder of a company. In 2008 she talked at a conference about allegedly unlawful activities of State officials involved in a hostile take-over of her company. Some information about this conflict was also published on the Internet by a human rights defender. Subsequently, the above officials initiated defamation proceedings against her, human rights defender and some other participants to the conference.     27 October 2014, Moscow Regional Court   The courts held that the impugned statements were untrue and ordered to make a retraction and take down the publications. 2. 7101/19 Gannushkina and Civic Assistance Committee v. Russia 23/01/2019 Svetlana Alekseyevna GANNUSHKINA 1942 Moscow Russian Civic Assistance Committee 2001 Moscow Russian   Galina Yuryevna ARAPOVA Voronezh Defamation civil (State body) The first applicant, director of the applicant organisation, published on Facebook a post by Mr D., one of the residents of the Chechen Republic. He stated that he had been threatened by a Deputy Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic and that his village had been besieged because of his complaints about poor situation in his village made in public. The Ministry of Interior in Chechnya initiated defamation proceedings against the applicants. The domestic courts allowed its claim. 9 July 2018, Supreme Court of Russia (received on 23 July 2018)   The courts ordered to make a retraction. 3. 37153/19 Machneva v. Russia 25/06/2019 Marina Matveyevna MACHNEVA 1946 Saint-Petersburg Russian   Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV St Petersburg Defamation civil (State official) The applicant published on social media a video of her meeting with the head of the State Housing Inspection in St Petersburg which also contained her statements that the official was incompetent, arrogant, lacked legal skills, unfit to be a leader and that he was not respecting his working schedule. The official initiated defamation proceedings. The courts held against the applicant. 20 December 2018, Supreme Court of Russia   The courts ordered to take down the publication and pay RUB 10,000 in non ‑ pecuniary damage. 4. 7745/20 Turkov v. Russia 30/01/2020 Nikolay Vladimirovich TURKOV 1989 Moscow Russian   Yekaterina Mikhaylovna SHMYGINA Voronezh Defamation civil (State body) The applicant published on Facebook a post stating that during a residents’ meeting in one of Moscow Districts he had been unlawfully apprehended on the grounds that he had not had his passport on him and had been beaten by police officers. He also posted statements by an eyewitness who confirmed that police officers had used force and tried to take the applicant’s mobile phone. The Ministry of the Interior initiated defamation proceedings against the applicant. 30 July 2019, Supreme Court of Russia   The courts ordered to take down the impugned publication.