The comparison of the Head Administration with a monkey and his depiction as Osama Bin Laden in the newspaper is a critique and value judgments and no statement of facts

JUDGMENT 

Redaktsya Gazety «Zemlyaki» v. Russia 21.11.2017 (no.  16224/05)

see here  

SUMMARY 

The applicant company publishes a local newspaper. The company  was convicted of defamation against the head of the District Administration. The cause was articles with critical comments against the local authority. The articles compared the local lord with a marmoset, a kind of little monkey, and depicted him as Osama Bin Laden in a photo of a Muslim turban and beard. The national courts considered that these publications had destroyed his reputation and condemned the publisher to a small fine and a statement of revocation and apology. The ECtHR found violation of the press freedom of speech against Russia.

PROVISION 

Article 10 .

PRINCIPAL FACTS 

The applicant company, Redaktsiya Gazety ‘Zemlyaki’, is the founder, editor and publisher of a local
newspaper, Zemlyaki, printed in Kstovo and distributed in the Kstovskiy District (Russia). The case
concerned defamation proceedings brought against it.

In 2004 the applicant company published a series of articles criticising the local authority and in
particular the managerial abilities of the then head of Kstovo District Administration, Y.L.
Within the same year Y.L. went on to complain about the articles to the domestic courts. The courts
found that the articles had damaged Y.L.’s reputation. In particular, they considered that comparing
Y.L. to a marmoset (a type of small monkey) and depicting him as Osama bin Laden in a photo
collage with a Muslim turban and beard had been defamatory. The company was ordered to pay a
symbolic fine and publish a retraction. Shortly after, the courts upheld this decision on appeal,
without addressing the applicant company’s argument that their articles had contained value
judgments and not statements of fact.

Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant company notably
complained about the decision ordering it to offer apologies to Y.L.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT 

Violation of Article 10

Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage)(echrcaselaw.com editing).