CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .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 } 915 03.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Aleksandr Krutov v. Russia (application no. 15469/04)   IMPOSITION OF A FINE FOR DEFAMATION BREACHES JOURNALIST’S FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Krutov is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Saratov.   In January 2003 the applicant, a journalist, published an article in a local newspaper, “ Nedelya Oblasti”, in which he examined the interrelations between the political groups in the Saratov Region during the year 2002. In particular, he wrote about the Saratov Regional Prosecutor, Mr B., having received “gifts” from the town hall in exchange for support he had provided to some of its members including by shielding them from criminal prosecution.   B. brought court proceedings against Mr Krutov, complaining that the article damaged his honour, dignity and professional reputation. The court found in favour of B. While it accepted the facts as presented by Mr Krutov in that article, namely that the “gifts” had been received by B. and that criminal proceedings had only been brought in respect of one town hall member who had subsequently been acquitted, it held that the article was defamatory as it contained statements of fact in respect of B. which had not been proven by the applicant. The court fined both Mr Krutov and the newspaper and ordered the newspaper to publish a rectification.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) Mr Krutov complained about being found liable for defamation for having written the article while he had only expressed his opinion based on facts related to the political environment in the region at the time.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 March 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Swtizerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges ,   and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court first recalled that the applicant had been a journalist and that the press had a duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest. The article had raised important issues and Mr Krutov had been entitled to bring them to the attention of the public.   Referring to its well-established case law the Court found that, as B. had been a civil servant in office, he had had to tolerate broader criticism than had he been a private individual. The Court further observed that the Russian authorities had confined themselves to analysing the importance to protect the public prosecutor’s reputation and had failed to strike a fair balance between that and the journalist’s freedom of expression. In addition, the Court was satisfied that Mr Krutov’s assumptions expressed in his article had not been incidental but based on sufficient facts as accepted by the domestic court.   The Court concluded that Mr Krutov had expressed in his article a value judgment the truthfulness of which had not been susceptible of proof. In addition, the applicant had not used abusive language. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that the authorities had not justified the fine they had imposed on Mr Krutov for defamation, in violation of Article   10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 150   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   *** This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.