Communicated on 6 November 2015
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 25147/09
Sergey Alekseyevich TERENTYEV
against Russia
lodged on 23 April 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Alekseyevich Terentyev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Syktyvkar, the Komi Republic. He is represented before the Court by Mr E. Mezak.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a professional musician and jazz critic. On 31 December 2007 the applicant published on his personal website an article where he criticised a local jazz festival and its president, Mr Yalynnyy. It contained detailed description of the event as well as a taunting critique of Mr Yalynnyy. In particular, the applicant mocked Mr Yalynnyy’s last name and doubted his professional qualities, as the jazz festival was, in his opinion, “a shoddy piece of work” and Mr Yalynny’s performance – “crappy”.
Mr Yalynnyy sued the applicant in defamation considering the article insulting and harmful to his reputation.
On 14 August 2008 the Syktyvkar Town Court found the applicant liable in defamation. The entire text of the judgment consisted of the following: a full quotation of the applicant’s article, a brief summary of the relevant domestic law and a list of the extracts from the article which had been mentioned in the statement of claim. The judgment then went on to observing that mocking of the plaintiff’s last name had been “legally unacceptable” and in breach of his “right to a good name”. The remarks about the plaintiff’s lack of professional qualities had harmed his reputation as they contained “negative information about [the plaintiff] as a person, professor and musician”. The Town Court awarded the plaintiff 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and directed that the applicant publish the refutation on his website.
The applicant appealed against the judgment, relying in particular on Article 10 of the Convention. He argued that the Town Court had failed to consider whether the interference with his right to freedom of expression had pursued any legitimate aim.
On 23 October 2008 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic dismissed the applicant’s appeal claim in a summary fashion.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of his right to freedom of expression.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the national courts carry out a proper analysis of the arguments and evidence put forward by the parties, and did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 (see Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, § 196, 15 October 2015, and, in the Russian context, OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05, §§ 71-79, 22 January 2013)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy