Sentencing a local newspaper to pay compensation for criticizing corruption issues of local officials and civil servants violates freedom of expression.
JUDGMENT
Cheltsova v. Russia 13-06-2017 (no. 44294/06)
SUMMARY
Freedom of expression of the press. Criticism from a local newspaper to a former Mayor and against civil servants. Russia’s national courts have condemned the publisher of the newspaper to compensation and republishing articles in the newspaper with corrections in the operative part of the decision. The domestic courts held that the applicant had not adduced any evidence to show that the information it published was true or verifiable. The ECtHR found that there was no violation of the freedom of expression as the published articles negotiated issues of public interest.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Inna Cheltsova, is a Russian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Fryazino, the Moscow Region. She is retired, but is also editor-in-chief of a local independent newspaper, Fryazinets. The case concerned a series of defamation proceedings brought against her for articles published in her newspaper.
Between 2005 and 2006 she was held liable under civil law in three sets of defamation proceedings for articles which were critical of a local civil servant, a manager of a local branch of a State unitary enterprise and a local entrepreneur who was also running for mayor of Fryazino. The articles published had made a number of allegations against these individuals, including combining the official function of civil servant with other gainful employment, alleged unlawful registration of real estate rights and dubious business activities. In the proceedings that these three individuals brought against her, the domestic courts essentially found against Ms Cheltsova because she had presented no evidence to prove that the information she had published had been true or verified. They ordered her to publish retractions and to pay between 10,000 and 15,000 Russian roubles in damages.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ms Cheltsova complained that the courts had not given enough consideration to the fact that her articles had been about a legitimate matter of public interest, namely corruption. She also complained in particular that the sanctions imposed on her, which had amounted to between four to six times her monthly retirement pension, had been excessive.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction: Ms Cheltsova did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.
