Limiting criticism to matters of public interest is a violation of the right to expression.
JUDGMENT
OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia 25-04-2017 (no. 39748/05)
SUMMARY
Freedom of expression. Press. A decision condemning a Russian newspaper for compensation for an article on the administration of a community was judged by the Court to have unjustifiably restrained its right to freedom of expression, since it contributed to a public interest debate.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant company, OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad, is a publishing company incorporated under Russian law based in Moscow. At the relevant time it was the publisher of Kvartirnyy Ryad, a newspaper covering the housing market in the Moscow area. The company complained that its freedom of expression had been violated when it was made liable for defamation in 2004. The newspaper had published an article about the administration of a large commonhold association, Bluebird. It reported that local residents had brought complaints against the head of the association, T. It also asked whether T.’s role as the deputy head of a district council was compatible with his commercial business activity. T. successfully sued the company for defamation, and it was ordered to pay damages of 10,000 Russian roubles (around 270 euros).
The company appealed, but it was unsuccessful.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
It relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) to complain that the judgments had unduly restricted its right to freedom of expression, arguing that the article had contributed to a debate of public interest and that the interference had been disproportionate in the circumstances.
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction: The applicant company did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
