CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 avril 2010

.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 } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } 294 08.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Bezymyannyy v. Russia (application no. 10941/03)   A DEFAMATION SENTENCE FOR FILING A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST A JUDGE IN BREACH OF THE CONVENTION   Unanimously   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Bezymyannyy, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Belgorod. He is a businessman and a former controlling shareholder of a private company. According to him, in 1997 several people produced a fake sales contract in respect of his shares in the company, as well as a fake register of the shareholders. They then tried to gain control over the company. Thereafter the matter was brought before the domestic courts.   In April 1998 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod, presided by judge B., dismissed the applicant’s action to have the sale of the shares annulled and the register of shareholders declared fake and illegal. The court refused to order a forensic examination of the evidence, including a copy of the register of shareholders and the registrar’s book of records.   An expert examination of the documents, which the applicant had claimed were fake, was completed in November 1998 as part of criminal proceedings against several people brought by an investigator at the request of the applicant. The expertise confirmed that the copy of the register of shareholders and the registrar’s book of records had been tampered with and that some of the entries had been fraudulently deleted or altered. Apparently the criminal investigation was discontinued in November 2001. Thereafter the case was repeatedly suspended and resumed.   In March 2000 the applicant wrote a letter to the Prosecutor of the Belgorod Region with a copy to the Prosecutor General of Russia, alleging that in the course of the proceedings in his case in 1998 judge B. committed a crime by knowingly delivering an unjust decision. The letter set out the applicant’s views on the circumstances of his case, referred to the outcome of forensic examinations carried out by the investigator in the criminal case and requested the responsible officials to bring criminal proceedings against judge B. Identical letters were sent to the President of the Belgorod Regional Court and the head of the Judiciary Qualification Board in May 2000.   In response to these letters, at the request of the President of the Belgorod Regional Court and judge B. criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for libel. They were discontinued in May 2001 because of an amnesty law.   On an unspecified date judge B. sued the applicant for defamation, claiming approximately 3,000   euros (EUR) in damages and seeking an order for the retraction of the impugned statements. The domestic courts granted the claims, reducing the damage award to EUR   800.   By a final decision taken in November 2003 the Belgorod Regional Court rejected the applicant’s action to annul the transfer of his property to a number of third persons. By a judgment delivered in February 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court rejected his application to annul a lease agreement between him and a certain commercial entity.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant, relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, complained about the defamation proceedings brought by judge B. He alleged that the proceedings had been unfair, that his letter to the relevant authorities could not be regarded as disseminating defamatory information, and that the award in the case had been disproportionate and arbitrary. The Court found that the complaint had to be examined under Article   10.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8   March   2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Judges , and Soren Nielsen, Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court noted that, unlike in the vast majority of cases before it concerning defamation claims, the complaint in the present case had been born out of the applicant’s request to institute criminal proceedings against judge B. rather than out of publication in the media. When writing his letters Mr Bezymyannyy had acted in his personal capacity as a private individual, not as a journalist.   The Court then reiterated that public servants should be protected from offensive, abusive and defamatory attacks calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties and to damage public confidence in them and the office they hold. It was even more important to protect judges since accusations against them might not only damage their personal reputation but could also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.   Mr Bezymyannyy had merely reported what he believed had been unlawful to a body empowered to institute criminal proceedings. He had used wording that had not been abusive or offensive. In the Court’s view, he had acted within the framework established by law for making complaints. The Court recalled in that connection that people had to be able to notify competent State officials about conduct of civil servants which appeared irregular or unlawful; this was one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law. The important role that the judiciary played in a democratic society could not in itself immunise judges against people’s complaints.   The content of Mr Bezymyannyy’s letters had not been made known to the general public; thus no press or other form of publicity had been involved. Therefore the negative impact, if any, of the applicant’s words on Judge B.’s reputation had been quite limited.   Lastly, considering the sanction imposed on the applicant, the Court held that an award of damages of approximately EUR   800 imposed for filing a request to bring criminal proceedings against a judge was disproportionately severe.   Consequently, the Court found that the defamation proceedings brought against Mr   Bezymyannyy had resulted in an excessive and disproportionate burden being placed on him. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Russia had to pay to the applicant EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is 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 Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 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.