Communicated on 15 December 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 35043/13
NOVAYA GAZETA
against Russia
lodged on 22 November 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant company, ANO “Redaktsionno-Izdatelskiy Dom ‘Novaya Gazeta’”, a legal entity incorporated under Russian law, is the publisher of the Novaya Gazeta newspaper (“the newspaper”).
The application concerns defamation proceedings instituted, following publication of an article in the newspaper, against the applicant company by ZAO Soletanshstroy (“the claimant”), a subcontractor in the construction works of Okhta Centre, the future St. Petersburg headquarters of Gazprom. Gazprom is a joint stock company the majority of stocks of which are State‑owned. The construction of Okhta Centre is co-funded by the city of St. Petersburg.
The article entitled “How I built a gas-scraper” ran with a subhead “Foreman Yu.K. tells fantastic details of how ‘a new symbol of St. Petersburg’ is being built” and contained a first‑person narrative by Yu.K., a former employee of the claimant who had been a foreman at one stage of the construction works. The newspaper’s editors only added notes explaining certain technical terms that Yu.K. used. According to Yu.K., numerous breaches of rules and regulations had taken place in the course of that stage of the works. The article included a commentary by the claimant’s representative. The claimant brought proceedings before the commercial courts against the applicant company and Yu.K. seeking a retraction of certain statements by Yu.K., which it considered tarnished its business reputation, and non‑pecuniary damages. The applicant company pleaded that it bore no liability for the statements by the third person. Yu.K. submitted evidence in support of his factual assertions, witness statements by other employees of the claimant. The commercial courts in three instances found for the claimant, ordered a retraction and awarded the claimant, in particular, 50,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in non‑pecuniary damages and RUB 49,000 in court and legal fees to be paid by the applicant company. The Supreme Commercial Court of Russia dismissed the applicant company’s request for supervisory review on 23 May 2012.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account the commercial courts’ decisions in the defamation proceedings against it? Was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 10 § 2? Was the applicant company punished for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person (see Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 142, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and Cheltsova v. Russia, no. 44294/06, § 91, 13 June 2017)? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant company’s right? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy