Communicated on 22 September 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 11265/17
Gleb Vyacheslavovich PAYKACHEV
against Russia
lodged on 28 December 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Gleb Vyacheslavovich Paykachev, is a Russian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Murmansk, the Murmansk Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. D. Peredruk, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a journalist who wanted to attend defamation proceedings instituted in 2016 by a police officer, Mr M., against a media group for an Internet publication of 2015. According to the publication Mr M. assaulted a driver because he had earlier cut in front of the car of Mr M.’s father. The driver asked the police to open a criminal case into the injuries allegedly caused by Mr M, but did not succeed. The publication contained a number of dashcam videos. It has been viewed about twenty-four thousand times.
At a preliminary hearing on 9 August 2016 Mr M.’s legal representative requested that the Leninskiy District Court of the town of Voronezh (“the District Court”) exclude the press and public from the process to protect Mr M.’s personal information, such as his place of work within the police, his visual identity, his place of residence, and data on his private car and that of his father. The representative of the respondent media group argued that the information in question was already known to the public from other articles and videos on the Internet. She also argued that the hearing should be open to the public in view of its importance in that it concerned press freedom and allegations by a member of the public of being ill‑treated by a police officer.
After hearing the parties the District Court granted the request to exclude the press and public from the proceedings. The District Court accepted that there was a need to protect information related to Mr M.’s personal and private life (such as his place of work, address, visual image and property) from being disseminated.
On the same day the applicant asked the District Court to allow him to attend all the court proceedings, except for when confidential information about Mr M. was being dealt with.
On 25 August 2016 the applicant attempted to gain admittance to the first court hearing on the merits of Mr M.’s case, but was not allowed. On 31 August 2016 the judge refused the applicant’s request of 9 August 2016 on the grounds that the trial had already been closed to the press and public.
On 29 November 2016 the District Court approved a friendly settlement between the parties to the defamation case.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the exclusion of the press from the proceedings in the case of Mr M. was not necessary and proportionate and, consequently, violated his right to receive and impart information of great importance to the public.
The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no legal remedies to challenge the decision to exclude the press from the court proceedings in Mr M.’s case.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant, a journalist, have a right to receive information concerning the proceedings initiated by Mr M. (see Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 130, ECHR 2016; Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 128, 27 June 2017)? Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy