CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } Published on 28 October 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   9096/13 Sergey Vladimirovich ZLOBIN against Russia and 9 other applications (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 3 October 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 10 §1 of the Convention relating to various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012; Porubova v. Russia , no. 8237/03, §§ 36-51, 8 October 2009; Kunitsyna v.   Russia , no. 9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13 December 2016).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Application raising complaints under Article 10 §1 of the Convention (various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth/registration   Representative’s name and location Summary of facts Final decision Date Name of the court Penalty (award, fine, imprisonment) Legal issues Relevant case-law Other complaints under well-established case-law     9096/13* 14/01/2013 Sergey Vladimirovich ZLOBIN 1963   Yelena Vladimirovna Popova Volgograd The applicant is an ex-judge of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd and ex-president of the Criminal Chamber of the Volgograd Regional Court. He was in conflict with his colleagues and had to resign. A journalist published some misleading information regarding his involvement in illegal activities. The applicant talked about this and the situation at the court at a radio show and during a press conference. The journalist and his company initiated defamation proceedings against him and the courts held in their favour. 31/10/2012 and 29/05/2013, Volgograd Regional Court RUB 10,000 and 100,000 in non ‑ pecuniary damage, RUB   4,000 in costs and to refute statements Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations Kunitsyna v. Russia , no.   9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13   December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article   152 of the Civil Code) Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - The applicant’s cases were considered by the courts in which he was working as a judge and had conflicts with colleagues, he provided domestic case-law confirming that the case in similar situation should be transferred to another court, another region, final decisions: Volgograd Regional Courts, 31/10/2012 and 29/05/2013     8288/18* 08/02/2018 Olga Sergeyevna LI 1986   Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Sofia, Bulgaria The applicant is a chief editor of a newspaper. The newspaper published an article about a judge who during the hearing in an administrative case had stated before conviction that the accused had breached the law. The relevant paragraph read as follows: “Ex-prosecutor, judge of the Leninskiy District Court, Ms Sh., who shouted like a boor during the hearing in the administrative case and found our colleague guilty before being acquainted with the materials of the criminal case”. The judge initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 298.1 of the Criminal Code regarding libel in respect of a judge. 07/09/2017, Kursk Regional Court RUB 90,000 courts’ failure in their duty to supply “relevant and sufficient” reasons for finding the applicant guilty of libel and to identify "pressing social need" for the interference, no proper analysis of the punishment and its proportionality Porubova v. Russia , no.   8237/03, §§ 36-51, 8   October 2009 (failure to apply Convention standards when convicting the applicant for libel)       50241/18* 22/10/2018 Mark Zakharovich FEYGIN 1971       The applicant stated on the radio that Mr Sh., a private person, blogger, had been prosecuted for paedophilia in the Netherlands. The domestic courts refused to admit as evidence the documents submitted by the applicant, which demonstrated the truth of these allegations and held against him 07/08/2018, Supreme Court of Russia The courts ordered to refute the statement that Mr Sh. had been prosecuted for paedophilia The domestic courts did not properly analyse the statements and refused to admit as evidence the documents submitted by the applicant, which demonstrated that his allegations were true Kunitsyna v. Russia , no.   9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13   December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article   152 of the Civil Code)       54340/18 07/11/2018 Irina Georgiyevna GREBNEVA 1943   Anastasiya Nikolayevna POPOVA 1986       The applicants published an article on the Internet about the president of a homeowners’ association and attached her photo to the article. They stated that the president did not properly comply with her duties. The latter initiated civil proceedings asking to delete her photo. The courts held in her favour. 22/06/2018, Supreme Court of Russia RUB 2,500 (each applicant) and to delete the photo The domestic courts based their decisions mainly on the fact that the president of the association had not provided her consent for publication of her photo, they did not give due consideration to the principles and criteria as laid down by the Court’s case-law for balancing the right to respect for reputation and private life and the right to freedom of expression Axel Springer AG v.   Germany [GC], no.   39954/08, 7 February 2012 (failure to apply the Convention standards as regards publication of a third person’s image)       17679/19 07/03/2019 Aleksandr Anatolyevich FROLENOK 1970   Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov Moscow The applicant shared a video from YouTube on his Facebook page, depicting a group of people in a boat pursuing a whale and repeatedly hitting him. The video had a headline (shared together with its content) that it had been a boat of a private commercial company, and that its’ CEO regularly breached eco-protection regime in the region. The applicant also posted a statement that "one could not treat the nature like this". The company sued the applicant. He argued before the courts, that he was not the author of the video and merely shared it. The court held in the company’s favour. 11/09/2018, Supreme Court of Russia, Paying costs (RUB 28,000) and publishing a rebuttal Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations Kunitsyna v. Russia , no.   9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13   December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article   152 of the Civil Code)       39244/20* 27/08/2020 Dmitriy Dmitriyevich GUSHCHIN 1975   Damir Ravilevich Gaynutdinov Kazan The applicant, a teacher, who earlier had been involved in the development of training material for the final school exams (“ЕГЭ”), made a publication on his private page on social network “Vkontakte”, where he assumed that there had been a leak of tasks. The Federal Service for the Supervision of Education and Science (Rosobrnadzor) lodged a defamation claim against the applicant on account of disseminating and publication of false information. The courts held in its favour. 28/11/2019, Supreme Court of Russia Refute and delete the allegedly defamatory information Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations Kunitsyna v. Russia , no.   9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13   December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article   152 of the Civil Code)       28964/21 12/05/2021 Aleksey Veniaminovich SOKOLOV 1973     ASSOTSIATSIYA PRAVOVAYA OSNOVA 2010   Roman Yevgenyevich Kachanov Yekaterinburg The applicants are the human rights organisation dealing mainly with the rights of prisoners and its director. The administration of IK-16 of Sverdlovsk Region (correctional colony for women) lodged an application against the applicants, stating that the materials about the conditions of detention in IK ‑ 16 as described by the first applicant on his Facebook page and by the applicant company on its website constituted defamation. The colony administration sought the rebuttal of the statements and the deletion of the said materials. The applicants claimed that the materials were published as a result of a social investigation of the practices of torture and other cruel treatment of prisoners. The courts partially allowed the prison’s claims, found several statements to be defamatory and ordered to delete and refute them 13/11/2020, Supreme Court of Russia Delete and refute the relevant statements Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no proper analysis of the claimant’s status, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations Kunitsyna v. Russia , no.   9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13   December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article   152 of the Civil Code)       50559/21 03/09/2021 Yelena Andreyevna SELKOVA 1977       The applicant posted on Facebook critical publications about Ms Sh., head of a Moscow hospital and an MP in the Moscow City Duma. The publication denounced Ms Sh.’s actions in breach of the antimonopoly law on procurement of medical equipment (breaches established by the FAS decision of 21/02/2018). Ms Sh. lodged a defamation action. The courts concluded that the publications contained expressions giving an unfavourable assessment and a negative evaluation of Ms Sh.’s personality as a public person and that both the applicant’s value judgments and the factual statements her post contained were untrue. 10/03/2021, Supreme Court of Russia RUB 30,000 in non-pecuniary damage and to refute the statements Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of citations, no proper balancing exercise Kunitsyna v. Russia , no.   9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13   December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article   152 of the Civil Code)       46747/22* 30/09/2022 Luiza Ruslanovna KHATSIYEVA 1967   Maksim Yuryevich Izhikov Paris The applicant, a citizen of Russia and France, is a political specialist, and a member of the EuroAsk international political club. She resides permanently in France. On 30/05/2017 she was invited to participate in a talk-show “Mesto vstrechi” (“Место встречи») on Russian television channel “NTV” (“НТВ”) on the subject of relations between Russia and France in the context of Macron’s victory in the elections. During the debate between the applicant and the chief editor of the Russian television channel RT (Russia Today) Ms S., who was also invited to the show, the applicant expressed a negative opinion about the RT’s coverage of the presidential campaign of Mr Macron. In particular, she said before she was interrupted: “You keep lying! ...”. The applicant was interrupted. ANO “TV-NOVOSTI”, a founder of the RT-channel, had instituted defamation proceedings against the applicant and the claim was granted. 02/06/2022, Supreme Court of Russia To refute the statements and to pay about RUB   500,000 in costs and expenses Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of the citations Kunitsyna v. Russia , no.   9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13   December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article   152 of the Civil Code)     35756/23 18/09/2023 Viktor Anatolyevich SHENDEROVICH 1958   Kirill Nikolayevich Koroteyev Moscow In 2021 the applicant participated in a discussion at a radio show regarding Mr Ye. Prigozhin, now deceased owner of a private military group “Wagner”. The applicant called him "a murderer" and "criminal". Mr Prigozhin initiated defamation proceedings and the courts held in his favour 19/05/2023, Supreme Court of Russia RUB 1,500,000 in non ‑ pecuniary damage and to refute the statements Inadequate reasoning in courts’ decisions, no adequate analysis of the facts and value judgments, no detailed analysis of the citations, no adequate balancing exercise, inadequate amount of compensation, no analysis in that respect Kunitsyna v. Russia , no.   9406/05, §§ 46-48, 13   December 2016 (failure to apply Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute, Article   152 of the Civil Code)