CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 15 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16503/14 ZAO INFORMATSIONNOYE AGENSTVO ROSBALT against Russia lodged on 18 February 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company, ZAO “Informatsionnoye agentstvo ‘Rosbalt’”, a legal entity registered under Russian law, is an independent information agency. The application concerns defamation proceedings instituted by Mr   Zh., a famous political figure and a State Duma member, against, in particular, the applicant company and Mr P. following publication on the applicant company’s website of a news item to report that Mr P., another State Duma member, had started probing into illegal or unethical schemes to which Mr   Zh. had allegedly resorted in order to obtain his higher doctoral degree. The news item was based on the information that Mr P. had disseminated at a press conference. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant company’s argument that they had reported on the third person’s position using a value judgment to rephrase it, found for the claimant, ordered a retraction and awarded 100,000 Russian roubles in non-pecuniary damages to be paid by the applicant company. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account the domestic courts’ decisions in the defamation proceedings against it? Was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article   10 § 2? Did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicant company’s right? 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)?