Information Note on the Court’s case-law 257
December 2021
Samoylova v. Russia - 49108/11
Judgment 14.12.2021 [Section III]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for home
Justified dismissal of claim about disclosure of applicant’s declared income data by television report on criminal case against her retired prosecutor husband: no violation
Unjustified dismissal of claim about disclosure of applicant’s address, tax ID number and house interior images by television report on criminal case against her retired prosecutor husband: violation
violation
Facts – The applicant complained about the non-consensual disclosure of her private data by a popular nationwide television-show. More specifically, in 2009, this had broadcasted a report concerning the ongoing criminal proceedings against a group of public officials and others, including her husband, a retired Moscow prosecutor, on account of alleged criminal activities in early 2007. The report had shown a tax authority’s letter in reply to a request for information from the investigator in her husband’s criminal case which contained their full names, official registration address in Moscow, official taxpayer identification numbers and their declared income data for 2004-07. It had also focused on the family’s country house with assertions about its high value and had shown photographs of its interior. The civil proceedings brought by the applicant and her husband were dismissed at all instances.
Law –
Article 8: This provision was applicable. An individual’s full name and home address fell within the scope of “private life” as did, in the circumstances, the applicant’s taxpayer identification number. This constituted information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, and could, depending on the modalities and the use under national law, constitute relatively sensitive data closely linked to a person’s identity. Lastly, the images of the country house, in the circumstances, fell within the scope of both “private life” and “home”; they had been disseminated without the applicant’s consent and had been taken either by the investigating officers during and in relation to the investigation of the criminal case against the husband or, perhaps, by the journalists during their visit to the house when filming for the impugned television report. As to the merits of the case, the Court found as follows.
(a) Contribution to a debate on a matter of general interest – The Court had already declared inadmissible the complaint by the applicant’s husband in relation to his defamation in the same television report and the same domestic proceedings (see Samoylov v. Russia [Committee], no. 1750/11, 28 May 2019). The impugned report had been aired on national television at the time when the criminal case had been submitted for trial by jury. In addition to the circumstances underlying the criminal charges, the report had touched upon a wider context relating to the allegedly luxurious lifestyles of the main protagonists, particularly those who had held public office and the possible origins of their wealth. In this context it had targeted the applicant’s husband. The report’s narrative that the dissemination of the income information had been meant to demonstrate that his officially declared income (mostly, during and in relation to his office as a prosecutor prior to his retirement in 2006) taken alone or even in conjunction with his family members’ income would not have sufficed to acquire a country house in a prestigious area. The principal purpose thus of this aspect of the report, along with the reporting on the ongoing criminal proceedings, had been to contribute to a debate of general interest.
(b) How well-known the applicant was and her conduct prior to the broadcasting of the television report – It was not necessary to determine whether the applicant had been a “public figure” as she had been affected by the impugned report solely by reason of her marriage to a retired high-ranking public official. The Court took note of the national courts’ and the Government’s argument based on the anti-corruption legislation passed since 2008 which included declaration and disclosure of income obtained by spouses of officials holding certain public offices; such requirements had been widely employed in the fight against official corruption. In the context of the report on the ongoing criminal proceedings against her husband, a bona fide journalistic investigation into a prima facie disparity between his assets or lifestyle and declared income could legitimately have regard to the financial situation of his household, specifically his spouse’s declared income. This was especially so where the public official had relied on the spouse’s income to justify the household’s assets.
(c) Method of obtaining the information and its veracity – The civil courts had considered that the relevant information had been received lawfully. At the time the Criminal Procedure Code allowed the disclosure of the “data” contained in a criminal case if, inter alia, it did not violate the rights or legitimate interests of the persons involved in the proceedings. The applicant, however, had not challenged the applicable legislative framework. In the absence of more detailed submissions and, in view of the fact that her complaints concerning the investigator’ actions had been declared inadmissible, the Court was not in a position to assess whether these had been in compliance with domestic law.
As to the accuracy and reliability of the information, it had not been clearly established in the civil proceedings that the information about the applicant’s low income had been incorrect. The applicant had been afforded the opportunity, however, to challenge its veracity and the courts had taken the amended data into account. The civil courts had chosen not to take a stance on the correctness of the data presented in the report as the applicant’s (relatively low) income data for 2004-06 or as the (high) value of the country house. Instead, they had concluded that even taking into account the higher income as indicated in the document submitted by the applicant, the statement about the disparity between that corrected income and the overall expenditure on the house had still “corresponded to reality” in the meaning of Russian law and thus could not give rise to a retraction. On the basis of the evidence the courts had considered, in substance, that there had been a sufficient factual basis for the allegation made. There was no reason to disagree with this assessment, in particular as regards the “significance” of the income‑expenditure disparity as it was established in the civil proceedings.
(d) The content, form and consequences of the television report –
(i) With regard to the alleged defamation and the showing of the data presented as the applicant’s declared income – In the circumstances, the prejudice caused to the enjoyment of the applicant’s right to respect for her reputation by the showing of the tax authority’s letter and its interpretation by the narrator, had been limited and had not extended beyond mere association, as a spouse, in the context of the media outlet’s contribution to the debate on the matter of public interest concerning her husband. Further, there was no reason to doubt the journalists’ choice of investigative and reporting techniques. Similarly, the Court took note of the technique focusing on the disparity between declared income of the household and expenditure. In conclusion, the Court found that both in so far as the association mentioned above had been limited to the applicant’s declared income and as regards the alleged defamation, the civil courts in dismissing her claim had examined the relevant issues and had struck a fair balance between the Article 8 and 10 rights at stake.
Conclusion: no violation (four votes to three)
(ii) With regard to the showing of the applicant’s address, her taxpayer identification number and the images of the interior of the country house – The civil courts had neither carried out an adequate examination nor given sufficient reasoning regarding the disclosure of these aspects of the applicant’s private data. They had failed to delve into the “necessity” of their disclosure and had thus not struck a balance between the rights at stake.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
The Court also found, unanimously, a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing Article 6 § 1 in that the civil courts had failed to adequately deal with the applicant’s claims of invasion of privacy.
Article 41: EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], 931/13, 27 June 2017, Legal Summary)
© 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