Published on 27 September 2021
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 83662/17 and 46808/20
NOVAYA GAZETA and Roman Aleksandrovich ANIN against Russia
and NOVAYA GAZETA and Ivan Olegovich ZHILIN against Russia
lodged on 27 November 2017 and 26 September 2020 respectively
communicated on 10 September 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern two sets of civil defamation proceedings against a publisher of a leading quality newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, and the journalists writing for it. The applicant’s details are summarised in the Appendix.Application no. 83662/17, Novaya Gazeta and Anin
On 1 August 2016 the Novaya Gazeta newspaper published an article authored by Mr Anin. It analysed publicly available data and suggested that Ms O.S. had vacationed several times on a yacht owned by an oil company.
The CEO of the Rosneft oil company brought defamation proceedings against the editorial board of the newspaper and the second applicant. The domestic courts in two instances found it established that the defendants had disseminated impugned statements of tarnishing nature and had not furnished proof to their truthfulness and ordered a retraction.Application no. 46808/20, Novaya Gazeta and Zhilin
In 2019 the Novaya Gazeta newspaper published an article and a news item on its website, both authored by Mr Zhilin. They concerned allegations that a man had been tortured in detention by officers of the Russian Federal Security Service (the FSB), and were based, in particular, on the interviews with his wife.
The FSB brought civil defamation proceedings against the applicant company and Mr Zhilin. The domestic courts in two instances concluded that the impugned publications had tarnished the business reputation of the FSB. They found it established that the defendants had disseminated impugned statements of tarnishing nature and had not furnished proof to their truthfulness.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
As regards each application, has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts’ judgments in the defamation proceedings against the applicants amount, each, to an interference with the right to freedom of expression of members of the media? If so, was each instance of the interference “prescribed by law”? Did it pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? Was it “necessary in a democratic society”? Did the domestic courts consider the following elements: contribution to a debate of public interest; the degree of notoriety of the person affected; the subject of the news report; the prior conduct of the person concerned; the content, form and consequences of the publication; the circumstances in which photographs had been taken; and the way in which the information had been obtained and its veracity (see Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 165, 27 June 2017)? Overall, did the domestic courts apply standards that were in conformity with the standards of the Court’s case-law concerning freedom of the press and media (see, among many others, Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia, nos. 46232/10 et 74770/10, § 64, 8 September 2020)?
Application no. 83662/17
1. ANO “Redaktsionno-Izdatelskiy Dom ’Novaya Gazeta’”, a legal entity incorporated under Russian law (“the applicant company”);
2. Mr Roman Aleksandrovich ANIN, a Russian national born in 1986 who lives in Yaroslavl.
Application no. 46808/20
1. ANO “Redaktsionno-Izdatelskiy Dom ’Novaya Gazeta’”, a legal entity incorporated under Russian law (“the applicant company”);
2. Mr Ivan Olegovich ZHILIN, a Russian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Moscow.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy