FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30278/02
by Sergey SOLODOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 July 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrG. Bonello,
MrA. Kovler,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 June 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Solodov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Yaransk, the Kirov Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Plyusnin, a lawyer practising in Kirov (Vyatka). The applicant is a professional journalist, at the material time he was also the founder and publisher of the Narodnaya Gazeta newspaper. The respondent Government are represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 March 2001 the applicant’s newspaper published three editorial articles under the headings “Ten mistakes of N.Ye. Bibikov” (“Десять ошибок Н.Е. Бибикова”), “Rating of municipal districts according to results of their work in 2000” (“Рейтинг муниципальных образований по итогам работы в 2000 году”), and “No one elected him” (“Никто его не выбирал”). All three articles criticised Mr Bibikov who was at that time the head of administration of the Yaransk District and stood as a candidate in the elections for the same position scheduled for 25 March 2001. The editorial articles concluded with an appeal to voters to make their informed choice. It was also indicated that statements about mistakes of Mr Bibikov had been compiled on the basis of opinion of district managers and publications in the Otechestvo and Narodnaya Gazeta newspapers.
On 19 March 2001 Mr Bibikov lodged an action against the applicant and his newspaper with the Tuzhinskiy District Court of the Kirov Region for the protection of his honour, dignity and professional reputation and for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Mr Bibikov asserted that the publications were damaging to his dignity and professional reputation.
On 3 December 2001 the Tuzhinskiy District Court of the Kirov Region gave its judgment. The court heard submissions by the parties and took statements of nineteen witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff or the defendant. The court found:
“It has been established in the case that [the contested articles] contained a number of facts [presented] in a masked form (in the form of expression of an opinion), without verbatim quotation and without references as to who, when and where voiced these opinions. These facts are inaccurate, damaging to the honour, dignity and professional reputation of the plaintiff and subject to a refutation.”
The court ordered that the applicant should pay RUR 10,000 (EUR 400) in damages and RUR 3,000 (EUR 120) in legal costs to Mr Bibikov. The court also ordered publication of a refutation. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
On 15 January 2002 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 3 December 2001. It reduced, however, the award for damages to RUR 3,000 in the light of the applicant’s personal circumstances.
On an unspecified date the publication of the Narodnaya Gazeta newspaper was stopped. A court bailiff requested the court to clarify how the judgment of 3 December 2001 was to be enforced.
On 14 March 2002 the Tuzhinskiy District Court of the Kirov Region held a hearing. The applicant produced two issues of the Narodnaya Gazeta newspaper of 15 February and 7 March 2002, in the first of which the refutation was printed. However, the court noted that these issues had only been a quarter of the size of the original newspaper and their circulation had been limited to ten copies (the original circulation had been 999 copies). The court ordered that the applicant should print 999 copies of a newspaper with the text of the refutation and hand them to a court bailiff.
The applicant appealed against the order of 14 March 2002. He claimed that he had executed the court decision on 15 February 2002 and that he could not be required to execute the same judgment twice.
On 23 April 2002 the Kirov Regional Court upheld the order of 14 March 2002.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention about a violation of his right to hold opinions and impart information. The applicant submitted that the domestic courts had failed to make distinction between statements of facts and value-judgments and unlawfully requested him to show the truth of his opinions.
2. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the findings of the domestic courts had been based on an incorrect interpretation of domestic law and improper assessment of evidence.
THE LAW
On 24 August 2003 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 2 December 2003 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 2 February 2004.
On 7 January 2004 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 2 February 2004, on 27 February 2004 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of his application. As it appears from the acknowledgement-of-receipt card countersigned by the applicant’s representative, the letter was received on 22 March 2004.
The applicant has not replied.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court notes that the applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In these circumstances it considers that the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy