Communicated on 8 August 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 39954/15
Ilya Vladimirovich SIVOLDAYEV
against Russia
lodged on 25 July 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ilya Vladimirovich Sivoldayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Voronezh, the Voronezh Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. L. Burkov, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg, the Sverdlovsk Region.
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 at regional newspaper Мы – граждане (We are Citizens) who followed the story below.
After the removal and transplantation of the organs of a deceased woman called Ms A.S., without her or her family’s explicit consent, members of her family instituted court proceedings against Moscow City Clinical Hospital no. 1 (“the hospital”) and the other medical institutions involved in the removal of the organs and their transplantation.
On 23 December 2014 the hospital asked the court to exclude the press and public from the proceedings. Despite opposition from Ms A.S.’s family, the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow City (“the District Court”) granted the request in part. It ordered all the proceedings to be held in camera, with the exception of the parties’ closing arguments and the pronouncement of the judgment. The District Court referred to the need to protect the confidentiality of Ms A.S.’s medical information, namely the information about her health, diagnosis and other data gathered during her medical examination and treatment.
On 11 February 2015 the family’s legal representative requested that the press and public only be removed when confidential medical information was being examined. The District Court rejected the request, again relying on the need to protect Ms A.S.’s confidential medical information. On the same date the applicant also applied to the judge in writing to attend the court hearings. The District Court never replied. Except for the parties’ concluding statements and the pronouncement of the judgment on 7 April 2015, the applicant was unable to attend the court hearings. However, the judge only read out the operative part of the judgment. Ms A.S.’s family provided the applicant with the full text of the judgment a month later, after they themselves had received it. On 30 June 2015 the Moscow City Court held an appeal hearing in the case, also in camera.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the exclusion of the press from the proceedings in the case of Ms A.S. was not necessary and proportionate and, consequently, violated his right to receive and impart information of particular public interest.
The applicant also complains that he had no legal remedies to challenge the decision to exclude the press from the court proceedings in the case of Ms A.S.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant, a journalist, have a right to receive information concerning the proceedings concerning Ms AS, in particular the reasons for the exclusion of the press and the public (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 his 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