THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12424/04
PUBLISHING HOUSE ‘PSKOV NEWS’
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a Chamber composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Helena Jäderblom,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Alena Poláčková,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 March 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, the publishing house Pskov News (автономная некоммерческая организация «Издательский дом “Новости Пскова”»), is a Russian non-profit organisation. It was represented before the Court by Mr V. Bykov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Matyushkin.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant is the publisher of Pskovskaya Guberniya, a regional weekly. The applicant and the newspaper are two distinct legal persons. In 2003 two officials sued the newspaper for defamation over an article about their encounters with the law. On 8 August 2003 the Pskov Town Court found the article’s allegations false and ordered the newspaper to issue a retraction but refused damages for emotional distress. On 23 September 2003 the Pskov Regional Court affirmed the judgment.
4. According to the Tax Service’s company register, in July 2009 the applicant was liquidated.
COMPLAINT
5. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention of a breach of its freedom of expression.
THE LAW
6. Article 10 of the Convention reads:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
7. The Government pleaded that the complaint was belated, incompatible with the Convention ratione personae, and manifestly ill-founded. As to compatibility ratione personae, they stated that the applicant had not been a party to the defamation suit and thus had not been personally affected. The applicant could not have been behind the article, as domestic law insulated newspapers from editorial interference. The claim for emotional distress had already been dismissed and could not be refiled against the applicant. The application form had not apportioned damage between the applicant and the newspaper.
8. The applicant insisted that its complaint was admissible. As to compatibility ratione personae, it argued that, though it had not been sued personally, as the publisher it had remained liable, because under domestic law liability for emotional distress could not be extinguished by the lapse of time. There had been no need for the applicant and the newspaper to fill out individual application forms, as each of them was “regarded as equally responsible” for the article.
9. The Court must first of all clarify whether the newspaper is also an applicant.
10. The initial letter to the Court announcing an intention to complain was written by the applicant itself. In the application form which followed, section 1 carried the name of the publishing house and section 2 carried the name of the newspaper. But section 2 of the form then in use was meant for an applicant’s first name, not for additional applicants. Those wishing to apply together were instructed to present full personal details for each of them. This was not done, and under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court then in force such a failure could “result in the application not being examined by the Court.”
11. Besides, the rest of the form spoke of an “applicant” in the singular, and the applicant itself admits that the form was not made on behalf of the newspaper. Hence, the Court will not count the newspaper as a second applicant.
12. Article 34 empowers the Court to hear cases brought by purported victims of violations of Convention rights. A victim is the person directly affected by an act in issue (De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 23, Series A no. 14).
13. In matters of freedom of expression, a publisher may be a victim if it has been a party to the contested proceedings (see, for example, Times Newspaper Ltd., the Sunday Times, and Evans v. the United Kingdom, no. 6538/74, Commission decision of 21 March 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 2, p. 90 and, by contrast, Bowman and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 4 December 1995, no. 24839/94).
14. The applicant and the newspaper were two distinct legal persons. The applicant was not a party to the lawsuit against the newspaper. Further, the claim for damages against the newspaper was dismissed and nothing suggests that it may be filed against the applicant (see McVicar v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46311/99, 10 May 2001). The more so since the applicant has been liquidated.
15. Accordingly, this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016.
Stephen PhillipsLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy