Communicated on 6 February 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 25657/15
ZAO BIZNES NYUS MEDIA and Kirill Yevgenyevich KHARATYAN
against Russia
lodged on 13 May 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns defamation proceedings brought by Mr Sechin, the head of the Rosneft oil corporation, against the applicants. The applicant company is the founder of Vedomosti, a reputable business newspaper; the second applicant is a Vedomosti journalist. Between September 2012 and June 2014 a number of articles appeared in various Russian media covering a so-called “taxation manoeuvre” (a series of changes in taxation of the oil and gas industry proposed by the Government to levy more taxes); it transpired from those publications that Mr Sechin was in conflict with Mr Medvedev’s Government over the imposition of higher taxes on Rosneft. On 16 June 2014 an article entitled “Igor Sechin, the Man of the Week” written by the second applicant was published in both print and online editions of the Vedomosti. The article criticised Mr Sechin’s role in blocking adoption of the taxation manoeuvre and noted that Mr Sechin was in a privileged position as he could influence decisions in the area of public governance despite not being part of civil service and thus lacking any accountability. Mr Sechin argued before the domestic courts that certain statements in the article tarnished his reputation. The applicants submitted that the impugned statements were value judgments of the second applicant and that they had been based on the information obtained from public sources, including numerous publications on the taxation manoeuvre. They also argued that Mr Sechin was a public figure and that the article concerned matters of public interest. The domestic courts in two instances found for the claimant for the reason that the defendants had not proven veracity of the impugned statements and ordered the applicants to publish a refutation in the newspaper’s print edition and to remove the article entirely from its website. Shortly after that the applicants published refutations in both print and online editions of Vedomosti and removed the article from the newspaper’s website.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account of the defamation proceedings brought by Mr Sechin? In particular, was the domestic courts’ order to remove the contested article from the newspaper’s website compatible with the legitimate interest of the public in access to the public Internet archives of the press protected under Article 10 of the Convention (see Węgrzynowski and Smolczewski v. Poland, no. 33846/07, § 65, 16 July 2013)? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?
APPENDIX
1. ZAO BIZNES NYUS MEDIA is a legal entity incorporated under Russian law.
2. Kirill Yevgenyevich KHARATYAN is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Moscow.
The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms M. Ledovskikh, a lawyer practicing in Voronezh.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy