Communicated on 8 February 2021
Published on 1 March 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 8288/15
ANO REDAKTSIYA OBLASTNOY GAZETY GOROD
against Russia
lodged on 2 February 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant is the editorial office of the regional newspaper Gorod (АНО «Редакция областной газеты «Город»»), a non-commercial organisation under Russian law which was established in 2011 and has its registered seat in Yaroslavl. The newspaper was later renamed Besplatno.Gorod. It is represented before the Court by Mr D. Kozyrev, a lawyer practising in the Pskov Region.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. In the run-up to an election to the regional legislature, the newspaper Gorod published two pieces which described Mr S. – a regional politician and candidate for election – as a “jailbird MP” («депутат-уголовник») who was having “an intense criminal lifestyle” («насыщенная криминальная жизнь»). The publications quoted extensively from a 1996 court judgment by which Mr S. had been found guilty of attempted conspiracy to commit fraud by deception and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment conditional on two years’ probation.
4. On 7 April 2014 the Leninskiy District Court in Yaroslavl granted Mr S.’s claim in defamation against the applicant, finding that his criminal conviction had been spent in 1998 and that he had not since committed any reprehensive acts. The newspaper had publicised information about his criminal past during an electoral campaign, reprinted parts of the 1996 judgment, and added a commentary using the present tense to insinuate that he still ought to be considered a criminal. The District Court awarded Mr S. 40,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 825 euros on that date) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and RUB 15,600 for legal costs and court fees.
5. On 4 August 2014 the Yaroslavl Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It endorsed the District Court’s view that the use of the expressions “jailbird MP” and “intense criminal lifestyle” was not justified, since Mr S. was no longer considered a convicted offender after his conviction had been spent.
COMPLAINT
6. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of its right to freedom of expression.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the Russian courts adequately balance the protection of the applicant’s freedom of expression with the right to respect for the private life of Mr S. (compare M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, nos. 60798/10 and 65599/10, §§ 98‑115, 28 June 2018)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy