THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22835/11
Irina Georgiyevna GREBNEVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 22835/11) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 18 March 2011 by a Russian national, Ms Irina Georgiyevna Grebneva, who was born in 1943 and lives in Vladivostok (“the applicant”) and was represented by Ms T. Demicheva, a lawyer practising in Vladivostok;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the right to freedom of expression to the Russian Government (“the Government”), initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicant is the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Arsenyevskie Vesti.
2. On 16 April 2010 Mr V., a local entrepreneur, filed a defamation claim against journalist R., the applicant, and the newspaper’s founders. He took issue with a publication by Mr R., which alleged that he and others had fraudulently enriched themselves through a network of sham companies supplying dairy products to the Pacific Fleet.
3. On 2 July 2010 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok granted his claim in part. It found that the statements about Mr V.’s “committing fraud”, “setting up sham companies”, and “continuing to commit illegal acts” were statements of fact for which no evidence was put forward. The applicant argued that all available evidence was in the exclusive possession of Mr R., the author of the publication, who had failed to appear in court when summoned. The court did not accept this line of defence, finding that the applicant, as editor-in-chief, should have had such evidence in her possession and should have been in a position to show the truth of the allegations. The court awarded Mr V. 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage payable by the applicant.
4. On 27 September 2010 the Primorskiy Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of her right to freedom of expression.
6. The finding of the applicant’s liability and an award of damages against her constituted interference with her right to freedom of expression. The interference had a lawful basis in Article 152 of the Civil Code which allowed an aggrieved party to seek the judicial protection of the reputation and claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damages. It also pursued a legitimate aim, that of protecting the reputation or rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. It remains to be established whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”.
7. While the media fulfil an essential function in a democratic society by disseminating information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 88, ECHR 2015), they should act in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide “reliable and precise” information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 93, 7 February 2012).
8. Although the applicant was not the author of the publication, as the editor-in-chief, she had the power to influence the editorial direction of the newspaper and its content. For that reason, she was vicariously subject to the same “duties and responsibilities” as journalists in collecting and disseminating information to the public (see Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 47, 15 January 2009).
9. While the role of the press certainly entails a duty to alert the public where it is informed about presumed misappropriation, the fact of accusing specific individuals of illegal acts by mentioning their names and positions placed the applicants under an obligation to provide a sufficient factual basis for their assertions (see Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 101, ECHR 2004‑XI). Thus, accusing an individual of engaging in “fraud”, setting up “sham companies” and committing “illegal acts” required a sound factual basis. Not only should the applicant have been satisfied that such serious allegations had a factual basis, but also she should have had access to evidence or justifications capable of corroborating them. However, at no stage of the domestic proceedings did the applicant make an attempt to prove the truth of the allegations by providing any evidence.
10. The Court therefore finds that, owing to the absence of the requisite factual basis for the serious allegations, the domestic courts were entitled to consider that there was a “pressing social need” to prevent the careless use of such allegations and to impose a restriction on the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The award of RUB 10,000 does not appear excessive (see, by contrast, Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, §§ 69-70, 8 September 2020). The applicant did not put forward any elements to show that the award of that amount had a serious impact on her financial situation.
11. Therefore, the interference complained of was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and thus may be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.
12. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 November 2022.
Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President