Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 115
January 2009
Obukhova v. Russia - 34736/03
Judgment 8.1.2009 [Section I]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Excessively broad scope of interlocutory injunction prohibiting a journalist from reporting on an accident involving a judge and on the court proceedings in connection therewith: violation
Facts: The applicant, a journalist, published an article about a civil action for compensation instituted by a judge in connection with a road traffic accident. The article reproduced a letter from the other party's spouse, who alleged that the judge was “taking advantage of her office and connections in the judiciary”. Subsequently, the judge sued the newspaper, the applicant and the author of the letter for defamation. On her request, the court issued an interlocutory injunction restraining the newspaper from publishing anything relating to the accident or the court proceedings pending its judgment in the defamation proceedings. An appeal against the injunction was dismissed. The court subsequently found that the article was defamatory and ordered publication of an apology in the newspaper.
Law: The applicant had been directly affected by the injunction which constituted a lawful interference with her right to freedom of expression. The injunction had remained effective throughout the entire duration of the defamation proceedings. Its purpose was to enable the defamation action to be heard without the plaintiff's rights in the meantime being prejudiced. However, although the domestic courts had held the injunction to be justified as a means of protecting the reputation of others and maintaining the authority of the judiciary, the reasons given by way of justification did not appear sufficient to the Court. As regards the order restraining the publication of information on the factual circumstances of the accident, the Court noted that the applicant had not presented any single version of the accident as being the true or only possible one but had reported the various accounts given by the parties, the police and the eyewitnesses. None of these versions had been contested in the defamation proceedings, the scope of which was limited to the statement about the judge's connections in the judiciary. In issuing the injunction, the court had merely referred to the fact that expert evidence had been commissioned, without explaining why it considered that further reports on the factual circumstances of the accident would be prejudicial. Moreover, since the judge had been involved in the accident as a private individual, the injunction restraining further reports on the accident could not have been for the purpose of maintaining the authority of the judiciary. As regards the prohibition on further reporting of the claim for damages, the Court accepted that the allegation – that the judge had taken advantage of her office and connections in the judiciary – could have been damaging to her reputation and to the authority of the judicial system. Nevertheless, although the injunction corresponded to the legitimate aim it had sought to achieve, its scope was excessively broad and disproportionate. It was not limited to the impugned statement, but prevented, in a general and unqualified manner, all possibility of publishing materials on the proceedings. The Court was unable to accept that such a sweeping prohibition was “necessary in a democratic society”. Indeed, the injunction had done a disservice to the authority of the judiciary by reducing transparency and raising doubts about the court's impartiality. Furthermore, the Russian legal system had no equivalent of the sub judice rule so that the right to report on proceedings in open court was not in principle restricted. It was also a matter of particular concern that the injunction should have listed as one of its purposes the need to prevent the newspaper from publishing materials “stating the opposite view”. In sum, the terms of the injunction were excessively broad and the domestic authorities had overstepped the limited margin of appreciation they were afforded in cases concerning prior restraints on publication.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy