CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 28 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9578/19 OOO REDAKTSIYA SEM NA SEM and Sofya Dmitriyevna YEZHOVA against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern the publisher’s responsibility for the material posted by third parties or made available via a hyperlink. The applicants are the online magazine 7x7 and its editor-in-chief. Their first case was communicated previously (see OOO Redaktsiya 7x7 and Yezhova v. Russia , nos.   40050/17 and 50535/17, communicated on 23 January 2018). Application no. 9578/19: the magazine posted a hyperlink to a YouTube interview with a libertarian blogger who spoke about drug legalisation policy. The applicants were fined RUB 800,000 and RUB 40,000, respectively, for “promoting or unlawfully advertising narcotics”. Application no. 9856/19: the applicants were fined a total of RUB 60,000 and RUB 15,000, respectively, for a third-party blogger’s post which contained bad language, even though the language had been deleted immediately upon notification from the telecoms regulator. Application no. 14843/19: the magazine posted a hyperlink to a YouTube video in which third-party bloggers interviewed activists from the campaign headquarters in the run-up to the legislative election. The second applicant was fined RUB 1,000 for “illegal electoral campaigning”. Application no. 30266/19: the applicants were fined RUB 60,000 and RUB 10,000, respectively, for a third-party blogger’s post which contained bad language, while the blogger did not incur any liability. Application no. 58446/19: the applicants were fined a total of RUB   102,000 for bad language in third party’s comments. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts draw a distinction between the materials published by the magazine and those published by third parties or available via a hyperlink (see Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary , no. 11257/16, 4 December 2018)? Did they take into account that the magazine and its editor had no control over the material on an external site? Did they take into account that the offending material had been removed before the sanction had been applied? Was the sanction necessary in a democratic society? APPENDIX     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Represented by 1 9578/19 OOO Redaktsiya sem na sem and Yezhova v. Russia 11/02/2019 Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN 2 9856/19 OOO Redaktsiya sem na sem and Yezhova v. Russia 19/07/2017 Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN 3 14843/19 Yezhova v. Russia 05/03/2019 Olga Vitalyevna VORONOVA 4 30266/19 OOO Redaktsiya sem na sem and Yezhova v. Russia 21/05/2019 Yekaterina Mikhaylovna SHMYGINA 5 58446/19 OOO Redaktsiya sem na sem and Yezhova v. Russia 25/10/2019 Olga Vitalyevna SHATSKIKH