CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA875FB86 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super } .sC314E67C { width:11.24pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   Communicated on 29 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10 Vladimir Viktorovich TIMAKOV and OOO ID RUBEZH against Russia and Vladimir Viktorovich TIMAKOV against Russia lodged on 3 August 2010 and 18 September 2010 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern defamation proceedings brought by the Governor of the Tula Region, D., against Mr Timakov, a journalist, and a newspaper publisher. Application no. 46232/10 . An article authored by Mr Timakov (the first applicant) appeared in a local newspaper published by the applicant company. It contained allegations of corruption in the Tula Region involving Governor D. The latter brought civil proceedings for defamation against the applicants. The first-instance court decided to hear the case in camera to protect the claimant’s reputation. The first applicant pleaded before the courts that the article had been devoted to the matter of public interest, had raised questions inviting a reader to reflect on the situation described and had not contained statements of fact. The first ‑ instance court found for the claimant referring, in particular, to his status as a high-ranking civil servant, ordered a retraction and held the applicants jointly and severally liable to pay Governor D. 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in non ‑ pecuniary damages. The second ‑ instance court upheld the first-instance judgment for the reason that the article had “overstepped the limits of permissible and acceptable criticism in respect of the political and public figure” but changed the order to paying damages ordering that each applicant pay the claimant RUB   500,000 (approximately 12,000 euros (EUR)). Application no. 74770/10 . The applicant talked on the phone with another journalist about corruption in the Tula Region and Governor D. and said that the Governor deserved “an A-grade” in corruption. The journalist published the transcript of the conversation in an article comprising comments on the Governor’s activities by various persons she had interviewed. Governor D. brought civil defamation proceedings against the applicant. The applicant pleaded before the domestic courts that he had not been given an opportunity to review the interview before its publication. The courts in two instances found for the claimant, ordered a retraction and awarded RUB   1,000,000 (approximately EUR 25,000 [1] ) in non-pecuniary damages to be paid by the applicant. In the meantime, Governor D. requested to institute criminal proceedings for libel against the applicant in connection with the same article. The applicant was charged with libel and tried. A justice of the peace found him guilty but relieved of sanctions for the reason that “his deeds had no longer been dangerous to society”. The applicant appealed against the conviction; the outcome of the appeal is unknown. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Common questions in applications nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10   Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the two sets of civil defamation proceedings instituted against the applicants by the Governor of the Tula Region? In particular, did the domestic courts perform a balancing exercise between the need to protect the claimant’s reputation and the right to divulge information on issues of public interest (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v.   Russia , no.   39748/05, § 41, 25 April 2017)? Did they give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference? Did the domestic courts 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 (ibid., § 46, and Terentyev v.   Russia , no.   25147/09, §   24, 26   January 2017)? Having regard to their respective size, were the awards in favour of the claimant “necessary in a democratic society” (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom , 13   July 1995, §   55, Series A no. 316 ‑ B)?   Case-specific questions   Application no. 46232/10   Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the first-instance court’s decision to hear the defamation case brought by the Governor of the Tula Region in camera (see Zagorodnikov v. Russia , no.   66941/01, §§ 18-27, 7 June 2007)?   Application no. 74770/10   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression on account of the criminal proceedings for libel instituted against him (see Nadtoka v. Russia , no. 38010/05, § 47, 31 May 2016)? In particular, did the fact of instituting the criminal proceedings in relation to the statements concerning the Governor of the Tula Region that had been subject to the civil defamation proceedings amount to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention? The parties are requested to submit copies of the relevant domestic judgments in the criminal proceedings in question.     APPENDIX     Application no. 46232/10   1.   Vladimir Viktorovich TIMAKOV is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Tula. 2.   OOO ID RUBEZH is a legal entity under Russian law registered in Tula. The applicants are represented by Ms G. Arapova, a lawyer practicing in Voronezh.   Application no. 74770/10   Vladimir Viktorovich TIMAKOV is a Russian national who was born in 1965, lives in Tula and is represented by Ms G. Arapova and Ms   M.   Ledovskikh, lawyers practicing in Voronezh.   [1] .     The difference in sums in euros is a result of the exchange rate fluctuation.