CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF514A5EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:396pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 }   114 11.02.2010       Press release issued by the Registrar   Two Chamber judgments [1] Fedchenko v. Russia (application no. 33333/04) Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 2) (application no. 48195/06)   NEWSPAPER EDITOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY DAMAGES FOR PUBLISHING CRITICAL ARTICLES ABOUT POLITICIAN AND PUBLIC OFFICIAL   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights          Principal facts   The applicant in both cases, Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in the the Bryansk Region (Russia). He is the founder and editor of the weekly newspaper Bryanskiye Budni ( Брянские будни). The cases concerned his complaints about defamation proceedings against him for the publication of articles in the newspaper.   In 2003 Mr Fedchenko published an article about a leaflet circulating in the region, which alleged that a member of parliament, Mr Shandybin, had accumulated a fortune by dubious means. The article described the contents of the leaflet, speculated on its possible authorship and made some general observations on bribery among members of parliament. Mr Shandybin brought defamation proceedings against the applicant, stating that three passages in the article were untrue and damaging to his honour and reputation. The district court granted the claim, holding in particular that the article was insulting. It ordered the applicant to pay Mr   Shandybin 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 150 euros (EUR)) and to give him an opportunity to publish a response in the newspaper. On appeal, the regional court quashed the order to publish a response, but upheld the remainder of the judgment.   In 2005 he published an article by two authors, which criticised the educational system in the Bryansk region and in particular the head of the regional Department of Education, Mr   Geraschenkov. Among other things the article stated that despite significant spending for education in the region, many boarding school pupils became social misfits and that the money was not spent for its designated purpose. Mr Geraschenkov brought defamation proceedings against the applicant and the authors of the article, claiming that several passages were untrue and damaging to his honour and reputation. The district court granted the claims. It ordered the applicant to pay damages, costs and court fees and to publish the operative part of the judgment under the heading “refutation” in the newspaper. On appeal, the regional court quashed the order to pay the court fees but upheld the remainder of the judgment, leaving the applicant with the obligation to pay more than RUB 15,000.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained that the domestic courts’ judgments had violated his freedom of expression protected by Article 10.   The first application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 July 2004, the second application was lodged with the Court on 30 September 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President, Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russian Federation), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges,   and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   In both cases the Court noted that the articles in question had been part of a debate on a matter of general and public concern, on which the applicant as a journalist and newspaper editor had the freedom to report. Given the crucial importance of free political debate in a democratic society, the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for a politician and a civil servant acting in an official capacity than they were for private individuals.   In the first case, the Court observed that two of the three impugned passages referred to other texts, the leaflet distributed in the Bryansk region and an article published in another newspaper. The Court was satisfied that the applicant’s description corresponded to the leaflet’s contents and noted that the accuracy of the description of the other article’s content was not in dispute. It was the form and the tone of the passages that the domestic courts had found defamatory, stating that slang words had been used ironically to describe the politician in a negative light. The Court did not find that the expressions used in the article went beyond the degree of provocation permitted by Article 10, which protects not only the substance of ideas expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed. As regards the third impugned passage, the Court observed that the applicant had expressed his personal view on the attitude of other members of parliament towards Mr Shandybin. The domestic courts had failed to distinguish between a statement of fact and a value judgment, the truthfulness of which could not be proved.   Similarly, in the second case, the Court observed that as far as two of the three impugned passages in the article published by the applicant in 2005 were concerned, it was not the factual content that was at issue, but the authors’ opinion. The authors had drawn their own critical conclusions about the educational system in which Mr Geraschenkov played an important role and had presumed that, as he was not only head of the Department of Education but also director of an institute responsible for the appraisal of teachers, teachers might be hesitant to express their discontent.   As regards the third impugned passage of the 2005 article, which concerned the alleged dismissal of uncooperative staff and unauthorised budget expenditures, the Court conceded that no evidence of dismissals had been provided other than the fact that one of the authors, who previously held a leading position in the Department of Education, had himself been dismissed. However, their general statement about dismissals could be regarded as an exaggeration not exceeding the boundaries of Article 10. Likewise, given that another newspaper had, with reference to an audit, reported on financial irregularities in the supply of textbooks, the authors had had a sufficient factual basis for their allegations about the expenditures.   In both cases, the Court unanimously concluded that the domestic courts had failed to convincingly establish any pressing social need for putting the politician’s and the civil servant’s personality rights, respectively, above the applicant’s rights and the general interest in promoting the freedom of the press where issues of public interest were concerned. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,800 in the first case and EUR 8,000 in the second case in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ***   The judgments are available only in English. 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 Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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)   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.