CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 April 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4775/20 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL - R against Russia lodged on 14 December 2019 communicated on 28 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant organisation is a Russian chapter of a global movement aimed at ending the injustice and corruption. The applicant organisation submitted two application forms, on 14   December 2019 (1) and on 12   October 2021 (2). (1)     In 2018 Mr L., rector of St Petersburg Mining University, brought an action for reputational damage against the applicant organisation in connection with an online publication about misuse of public funds. The domestic courts found the reference to Mr L.’s involvement in real estate schemes to be damaging to his reputation and ordered the retraction and the removal of the relevant passage and Mr L.’s photo from the publication. They also awarded   1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages to Mr L. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 14   June 2019. (2)     The applicant organisation was included in the register of “foreign agents”. Subsequently, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation refused to accredit it as an official anti-corruption expert. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 12   April 2021. The applicant organisation complains under Article   10 of the Convention about unjustified interference with its freedom of expression on account of (1)     the domestic courts’ decisions in the proceedings which ended on 14   June 2019 and (2)     the negative legal consequences it had to face as a result of its registration as a “foreign agent”. The applicant organisation also complains under Article   6 of the Convention that the court at first level of jurisdiction examined Mr L.’s claims in camera. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant organisation’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article   10 of the Convention, as regards the domestic courts’ order to retract the passage and Mr L.’s photo from the online publication about misuse of public funds and to award damages to Mr   L. in the amount of RUB   1,000,000?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant organisation’s freedom of expression, as regards the refusal of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation to accredit the applicant organisation as an anti ‑ corruption expert?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 (compare with Ecodefence and Others v. Russia , nos. 9988/13 and 60 others, § 187, 14 June 2022)?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the decision of the court at first level of jurisdiction to hear the case brought by Mr L. in camera (see Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v. Russia , nos.   46232/10 and 74770/10, §§   74-83, 8 September 2020)?