Communicated on 19 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 44414/12
Artem Romanovich ALEKSANDROV
against Russia
lodged on 21 June 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Artem Romanovich Aleksandrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Tambov.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a deputy of the Tambov City Duma.
On 13 March 2011 elections to the Tambov Regional Duma were held. Irregularities which allegedly took place during the elections were widely discussed in the media. A number of politicians, including G. Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party, V. Zhirinovskiy, the leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, and V. Ryzhkov, one of the leaders of the Parnas party, made statements concerning such irregularities. Allegations of falsification of the results were also made by an expert from Golos, an association for the protection of consumer rights. The matter was also discussed in the report of N.V., an expert, in an article published on the website of the Novaya Gazeta newspaper on 9 June 2011, as well as in an article published on the website of the Tambov-Inform news agency on 30 June 2011.
On an unspecified date the Tambov Region Investigation Committee launched an investigation into the allegations.
On 30 June 2011 the newspaper Nash Golos («Наш Голос») published an interview with the applicant in which he discussed the Tambov Regional Duma elections. In the interview he stated:
“It pains me that the Chairman of the Regional Electoral Commission publicly stated that there had been no irregularities, thereby trying (deliberately or not) to conceal the facts of falsification during the elections. The question is why A.S. Puchin is doing it? Perhaps he truly does not know about the most blatant irregularities, and trusts such people as O.O. Ivanov. However, this would give rise to questions concerning the competence of Chairman Puchin, who is unable to detect the most blatant falsification, or pretends that there were no irregularities.”
On 7 July 2011 Mr Puchin brought proceedings for defamation against the applicant. He argued that the results of the elections were deemed valid and, although falsification constituted a criminal offence, no instances of falsification had been found. Mr Puchin claimed, in particular, that the following passage was damaging to his honour and reputation:
“It pains me that the Chairman of the Regional Electoral Commission publicly stated that there had been no irregularities, thereby trying (deliberately or not) to conceal the facts of falsification during the elections.”
At the hearings before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov from August to September 2011 the applicant stated that, together with N.V., he had seen voting ballots pre-filled with votes for the United Russia party being distributed. He also submitted to the court copies of complaints regarding the election irregularities, which had been submitted to the Tambov Regional Court, the Tambov Region Electoral Commission, and district electoral commissions, as well as an article on the same subject published in the media. The applicant also asked the court to examine at the hearing N.V., G.K. and P.P. as witnesses who could corroborate that the alleged irregularities had taken place.
Mr Puchin asked the court to examine a certain member of the Tambov Region Electoral Commission at the hearing.
The court summoned all the witnesses requested by the parties.
At the hearing of 13 October 2011 the applicant asked the court to adjourn examination of the case until the Tambov Region Investigation Committee had completed the investigation into the alleged irregularities. Accordingly, the court adjourned examination of the case.
On 17 October 2011 the Tambov Region Investigation Committee refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a criminal offence.
On 24 October 2011 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov was informed of that decision. It resumed the proceedings and scheduled a new hearing for 7 November 2011.
On 26 October 2011 the deputy prosecutor of the Tambov Region overruled the decision of 17 October 2011 as unlawful.
On 7 November 2011 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov granted Mr Puchin’s claim. It appears that the court did not summon the witnesses requested by the applicant. During an adjournment of the hearing the applicant called one of them, G.K., who lived nearby. G.K. was able to go to the court and testify at the hearing. The other witnesses were not examined.
The court found as follows:
“Referring to [the applicant’s] statement about [Mr] Puchin’s having concealed the facts of falsification during the elections, which was published in the newspaper, the claimant and his representative aver that such an event did not take place, that this does not correspond to reality. The defendants failed to corroborate the opposite. The court has established that the falsification of the election results did not take place. An investigation into this was conducted by the Tambov Region Investigation Committee. The investigation found no breaches in the operation of the election commissions, no instances of falsification of the election results, no obstructions to the exercise of the right to vote, and no instances of falsification of the voting ballots either ...
On 17 October 2011 the institution of criminal proceedings was refused. This decision was not appealed against. The term ‘falsification’ means a fake, a deliberate misrepresentation, a substitution of [something] true by [something] fake. In the course of the investigation [the applicant’s] allegations concerning the unauthorised distribution of voting ballots were examined. However, [the applicant’s] complaint did not contain any allegations regarding [Mr] Puchin’s unlawful actions, and [his] activities were not the subject of the investigation either, as there were no grounds for that. Therefore, as no evidence of the facts of falsification has been presented, there are no grounds to believe that they were concealed, in particular by [Mr] Puchin.
Accordingly, the court considers that the defendant’s allegations of concealment (deliberate or not) by the claimant of the facts of falsification during the elections do not correspond to reality.
...
The court considers that [the applicant’s] allegations about the claimant’s having concealed the facts of falsification contain the accusation that the latter acted in bad faith and breached the legislation ... on elections. This accusation is groundless, does not correspond to reality and therefore diminishes the honour, dignity and business reputation of [Mr] Puchin. The defendants failed to provide proof to the effect that the above information corresponded to reality. On the basis of the foregoing, the claimant’s claim should be granted.”
The court ordered the applicant and the newspaper to publish a retraction in the next issue, and awarded the claimant damages in the amount of 1,000 Russian roubles (approximately 24 euros).
The applicant appealed.
On 21 December 2001 the Tambov Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment.
On 31 May 2012 the Tambov Regional Court refused to transfer the applicant’s cassation appeal to the Presidium for examination.
B. Relevant domestic law
For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice, see Fedchenko v. Russia, no. 33333/04, §§ 17-20, 11 February 2010.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the judgments of the domestic courts violated his right to express his opinion and impart information and ideas on matters of public interest.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the publication of the interview with the applicant in the Nash Golos newspaper on 30 June 2011 and the decisions of the domestic courts in the ensuing defamation proceedings, was the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy