CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 décembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   884 6.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT FILATENKO v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Filatenko v. Russia (application no. 73219/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksandr Grigoryevich Filatenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Kyzyl in the Tyva Republic (Russia). He is a journalist for Tyva, the Regional State television and radio broadcasting company.   The case concerned defamation proceedings brought against the applicant for having asked, in an allegedly distorted manner, a question put by a viewer during a live television debate.   On 15 December 1999, four days before the general and regional elections in Russia, Tyva broadcast a live show, “Elections-99”. The applicant was the presenter. During the show, he was handed pieces of paper with questions from viewers to three parliamentary candidates representing different political factions, including the Otechestvo Party and the Edinstvo Movement. One question referred to an incident during which the Tyva Republic flag had been torn off the car which was campaigning in support of the Otechestvo Party candidate.   It was a matter of disagreement as to how the applicant had worded that question to the candidates. The plaintiffs’ version was that the applicant had presented the incident as if the Tyva flag had been torn down and stamped on by people from the Edinstvo Campaign Headquarters. The applicant denied having made any such allegation: he only admitted to having specified that the incident had taken place near the Edinstvo Campaign Headquarters.   In the defamation proceedings brought against the applicant and the broadcasting company by the Edinstvo Movement, subsequently replaced by five people working at the Edinstvo Campaign Headquarters, Kyzyl District Court accepted the first version of how the question had been worded.   As the video recording of the show had been lost, the district court had to rely on witness testimonies to establish how exactly the applicant had worded the question. The district court accepted witness statements confirming the first version of the applicant’s wording of the question from four people connected with the Edinstvo Movement, finding that it had no grounds “to doubt their objectivity”. It dismissed the statements by the applicant’s colleagues as unreliable due to their connection with the broadcasting company. A further statement by an independent witness, employed to monitor the media during the 1999 electoral campaign, which corroborated the applicant’s version of his wording of the question, was also dismissed on the ground that it contradicted the Edinstvo witness statements.   The district court therefore concluded that the question, as it had been submitted by the viewer, had not been defamatory but that the applicant’s presentation of that question had amounted to a damaging allegation. As a result, on 19 July 2000, the applicant was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay, in total, 12,500 Russian roubles (approximately EUR 347) compensation. Tyva was also ordered to broadcast a rectification in the same time slot as the original show. That judgment was upheld on appeal.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 February 2001 and declared partly admissible on 3 June 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10, the applicant complained that his conviction for defamation had violated his right to impart information and impaired his freedom of expression as a journalist.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   It was common ground between the parties that the Russian courts’ judgments had represented an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. That interference had been “prescribed by law”, namely Article 152 of the Civil Code, and served the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of people working at the Edinstvo Campaign Headquarters.   The Court reiterated that, as a general rule, any opinions and information aired during an electoral campaign should be considered part of a debate on questions of public interest and that there was little scope under Article 10 for restrictions on such debate. Similarly, punishing a journalist for having worded a question in a certain way, thus seriously hampering the press’ contribution to a matter of public interest, should not be envisaged unless there was particularly strong justification. Therefore, the timing (just before elections) and format of the show (live and aimed at encouraging lively political debate), necessitated very good reasons for any kind of restriction on its participants’ freedom of expression.   Essentially, the applicant’s case had centred on the disagreement between witnesses as to what he had actually said. The Court found that the Russian courts’ had not treated those witness statements equally. The claim that the applicant had made damaging allegations against the Edinstvo Movement had solely been supported by witnesses who were, in one way or another, connected with that movement. No assessment had been made of their reliability, whereas it had been precisely for that reason that the statements of the applicant’s colleagues had been rejected. The only statement by an independent and professional media observer had been rejected because it had not corroborated the Edinstvo witnesses. The Court therefore found that the Russian courts had failed to make an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts and had not given sufficient reasons for finding that the applicant’s wording of the question had been defamatory.   Furthermore, for an interference with the right of freedom of expression to be proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others, there had to be a link between the statement in question and the individual(s) bringing the defamation proceedings. However, not one of the individuals who had brought the defamation proceedings had been mentioned during the television show and no witness in the proceedings had linked the allegation to any of them. The feeling expressed in the proceedings had been one of general indignation about the Edinstvo Campaign Headquarters having been implicated in the flag incident. There had been no indication that the allegation had represented an attack on anyone’s personal reputation. Indeed, that interpretation was confirmed by the fact that the defamation claim had initially been filed by the Edinstvo Movement as a legal entity, then replaced by individual members because, under Russian law, they could claim non-pecuniary damages.   Finally, there could be no serious doubts about the applicant’s good faith. He had merely requested a reaction from the show’s participants on an event of major public concern. He had made no affirmations. He could not be criticised for having failed to verify facts, given the obvious constraints of a live television show. In any event, a representative of the Edinstvo political movement had been present and invited to respond to the question.   The Court therefore concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been sufficiently justified, in violation of Article 10.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.