CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 septembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 100 August-September 2007 Saliyev v. Russia - 35016/03 Decision 27.9.2007 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Withdrawal from newspaper stands and destruction of an issue containing a politically sensitive article by the applicant on the instructions of the editor-in-chief of the municipally-owned newspaper: admissible   In 2001 the applicant wrote an article alleging that a high-level official, one of the leaders of the pro‑government political party, had been involved in an illegal purchase of shares of a local energy-producing company. The article was accepted for publication by a municipally-owned newspaper. In the morning the issue containing the applicant’s article was sent to subscribers and to State libraries. In contrast, the 2,000 copies which had been given to the distribution company to be sold at the street newspaper stands were withdrawn shortly afterwards and later destroyed. The editor-in-chief had to sign a backdated order for the withdrawal of the copies. Some days later, he handed in his resignation to the Town Mayor, his employer. He explained, in a letter to the company concerned by the article, that the decision to withdraw the issue had been taken by the head of the distribution company. However, he denied this during a preliminary inquiry into the applicant’s complaint. In 2003 the investigator decided not to open a criminal investigation, finding that the decision to withdraw the copies had been taken by the editor-in-chief himself, without any coercion, and in order to avoid the lawsuits and litigation which might have followed the publication of the article, and to protect the editorial staff. The investigator concluded that no interference with freedom of the press had occurred. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the court. His civil law suit was also dismissed. In the months following this incident he tried to publish the article in several regional and national newspapers, but to no avail. Admissible .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes