CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     740 08.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgments [1] Porubova v. Russia (application no. 8237/03 ) Romanenko and Others v. Russia (no. 11751/03 )   PENALTIES IMPOSED ON JOURNALISTS FOR CRITICISING MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC RESOURCES UNJUSTIFIED   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights in both cases No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) in the case of Porubova   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded, in the case of Romanenko and Others , each applicant 860   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In the case of Porubova, the Court made no award as the applicant had not submitted an itemised claim. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant in the first case is Yana   Porubova,   a Russian national who lives in Yekaterinburg (Russia);   she was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper D.S.P. The applicants in the second case are three Russian nationals,   Tatyana Romanenko, Irina Grebneva and Vladimir Trubitsyn, who live in Vladivostok and Arsenyev (Russia) and are the   founders of the weekly newspaper,   Arsenyevskie Vesti .   The cases concerned the applicants’ complaints about proceedings brought against them for criminal libel and insult in the first case and defamation in the second case.   Ms Porubova   had published an   article in 2001   which accused V. and K., two local officials in the Sverdlovsk Region, of misappropriation of public funds. It also alleged that the two officials were having a homosexual affair. The officials concerned subsequently brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for criminal libel and insult. Ultimately, the domestic courts, leaving the alleged embezzlement outside the scope of the charges, found that the articles in question had damaged V.’s and K.’s reputation as politicians and public servants. Following a trial conducted in private to protect V. and K. from further publicity about their private lives, the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to one-and-a-half year’s correctional work, from which she was subsequently dispensed on account of an amnesty in favour of women and minors.   The   applicants in the second case   had published two articles in January and April 2002 criticising the management of public resources in the Primorskiy region, in particular with regard to undocumented sale of timber to Chinese companies which had been on the rise after the local courts’ management department had obtained a timber purchasing quota. The source of that allegation was an open letter addressed to the Presidential representative in the region by 17 State and municipal employees and private businessmen, and signed among others by the local police chief and a senior tax inspector. Subsequently, two sets of civil proceedings were brought against the applicants for defamation: the first by the courts’ management department of the Primorskiy region; and, the second by its director; Mr   Shulga. In June 2002 the domestic courts found in favour of Mr Shulga and ordered each applicant to pay him 10,000   Russian   roubles   (RUB). In October 2002 the courts further found against the applicants who were ordered to pay the management department RUB   15,000 each. In both sets of proceedings the courts found that the applicants had disseminated information without verifying whether it was true or not.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10, the applicants complained that the proceedings against them had infringed their right to freedom of expression. Ms Porubova also complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial)   that the trial in her case had not been public.   In the case of Porubova, the application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 February 2003 and declared partly admissible on 9 December 2004. In the case of Romanenko and Others the application was lodged with the Court on 26 February 2003 and declared admissible on 17 November 2005.   Judgments were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Article 10   Firstly, the Court found that the articles in question, concerning allocation and management of public resources, had dealt with issues which merited legitimate public concern and on which the applicants, as journalists, had the right to report. Although in the case of Porubova , the charges retained against the applicant had been in relation to V. and K.’s alleged homosexual relationship, the Court considered that the main thrust of the applicant’s articles had been the dubious transactions with taxpayers’ money and not V. and K.’s private life. Their alleged homosexual relationship had served to give colour to the events and explain why the scheme had been mounted in such a way that K. would be its ultimate beneficiary.   Indeed, the subjects of the applicants’ scrutiny had been, in the first case, professional politicians, and in the second case, a State body and civil servants acting in their official capacity, who should accept that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for them than for private individuals.   Furthermore, in the case of Romanenko and Others , it had not been alleged that the applicants, who moreover had not been the source of the allegation about irregularities in the timber business, had distorted or otherwise modified the text of the original open letter. In reprinting an official non-confidential document, the applicants had acted in good faith. Nor indeed had the underlying facts in the proceedings been contested, such as the fact that the courts’ management department had obtained unusually high timber purchasing quotas or that wholesale companies purchasing timber had been able to operate without appropriate licences.   Likewise, the Court was struck by the fact that, in the case of Porubova , the domestic authorities, the prosecution and the courts had never examined the veracity of the allegations of V. and K.’s homosexual relationship; no finding had been made in that respect.   Given the severity of the sanctions against the applicants (correctional work in the first case – Ms Porubova’s dispensation through an amnesty being a fortunate coincidence – and in the second case a penalty amounting to four months of the applicants’ wages), the Court found that the Russian courts had not given relevant and sufficient reasons in either of the cases to justify the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression. The interference had not therefore been “necessary in a democratic society” and the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 6 § 1   In the case of Porubova , the Court accepted that the exclusion of the press and public had been necessary for the protection of the injured parties’ private life. The decision to hold the trial in private had not therefore been arbitrary or unreasonable and the Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.