CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 février 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 237 February 2020 Atamanchuk v. Russia - 4493/11 Judgment 11.2.2020 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Criminal conviction, fine and two-year ban on journalistic or publishing activities imposed on businessman for hate speech against ethnicities: no violation Facts – The applicant, an entrepreneur and owner of a local newspaper, was convicted of inciting hatred on account of an article containing offensive remarks about non-Russian ethnic groups. He stated in particular that these groups were prone to crime, would “slaughter, rape, rob and enslave, in line with their barbaric ideas” and “participate[d] in the destruction of the country”. The impugned article was published twice, in two local newspapers with distribution figures of 8,000 and 10,000, in a multi-ethnic region. For each publication of the article the applicant was sentenced to a fine of some 5,100 euros and to a two-year ban on exercising any journalistic or publishing activities. The sentence in respect of the first publication was not enforced. As regards the second publication, the fine was converted into two hundred hours of community work, on account of the applicant’s failure to pay the fine. Law – Article 10: The reasons adduced by the domestic courts for convicting the applicant had been relevant. Importantly, the sentences had been imposed in the context of the legislation aimed at fighting hate speech and they had been aimed at protecting the rights of others, specifically the dignity of people of non-Russian ethnicity residing in the applicant’s region. Furthermore, the Court expressed doubts as to whether the content of the applicant’s article had been “capable of contributing to the public debate” on the relevant issue or that its “principal purpose” had been to do so. It could not be reasonably perceived as comments criticising any specific policy of the government, for instance as regards migration. The impugned statements, lacking any factual basis, could be reasonably assessed as stirring up base emotions or embedded prejudices in relation to the local population of non-Russian ethnicity. Thus, even though the article had not been considered as containing any explicit call for acts of violence or other criminal acts, it had been within the national authorities’ margin of appreciation to react in some manner. Moreover, the applicant had been founder of a local newspaper and only occasionally published articles in other local newspapers, apparently, as a freelancer, apart from his main professional activity as an entrepreneur. So it would not appear from the circumstances of the case that the prohibition to exercise journalistic or publishing activities for two years had had any significant practical consequences for the applicant. In view of the foregoing, the present case disclosed exceptional circumstances justifying the sentences imposed on the applicant. In particular, by prohibiting the applicant from carrying out a journalistic or publishing activity for two years, the domestic courts had not contravened the principle that the press had to be able to perform the role of a public watchdog in a democratic society. The Court did not find it necessary to decide whether the applicant’s complaint should be dismissed with reference to Article   17 of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). The Court also found, by six votes to one, no violation of Article 6 §   1 on the ground that the unmotivated refusal of the applicant’s request to summon a philology specialist for examination in court had not offended the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings. (See the Factsheet on Hate speech ; see also Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], 33348/96, 17   December 2004, Information Note 70 ; Féret v. Belgium , 15615/07, 16   July 2009, Information Note 121 ; and Stomakhin v. Russia , 52273/07, 9   May 2018, Information Note   218 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes