Criticism in the press of political figures, convictions for damages and freedom of expression

JUDGMENT

Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3) 02.10.2018 (no. 7972/09)

Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 4) 02.10.2018 (no. 17221/13)

Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 5) 02.10.2018 (no. 17229/13).

SUMMARY

Critical publications regarding the behavior of political figures (use of state-owned cars for private purposes, ownership fraud, favoritism of a shopping center owner) and freedom of expression.

Sentencing a journalist for defamation of politicians. Obligation of the journalist to compensate them and recall his publications. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the interference made through the convictions of civil courts in the journalist’s freedom of expression was disproportionate to the intended aim and was not “necessary in a democratic society”. Violation of his / her freedom of expression.

PROVISION

Artcicle 10

PRINCIPAL FACTS

The applicant in all three cases is Oleg Fedchenko, a Russian national who was born in 1968 and who
lives in Suponevo (Bryansk Region, Russia).

Mr Fedchenko is the editor of a weekly newspaper which he founded himself called Bryanskiye
Budni (Брянские будни).

All three cases concerned court findings of defamation against Mr Fedchenko.

In Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3) the domestic court found that the applicant had defamed a member
of the Bryansk Region Duma in an article published in February 2008, which referred, among other
things, to the politician allegedly using his official car for private purposes. The court in November
2008, upheld on appeal in December of the same year, awarded 40,000 Russian roubles to the
claimant and ordered Mr Fedchenko to publish a retraction within 10 days of the judgment coming
into force.

Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 4) concerned a November 2012 damages award of 5,000 roubles against
the applicant after he hadpublished an article which referred to a deputy governor of the Bryansk
region in connection with land fraud.

Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 5) concerned an award of 5,000 roubles made against the applicant in
September 2012 after he was found to have defamed another regional governor in an article about
alleged favouritism by the authorities to the owner of a local shopping centre which had been found
to be in breach of fire safety rules. He was also ordered to publish retractions in both cases.

Mr Fedchenko relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) in all three cases to complain about the
court awards against him.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT

– case of Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 3):

Violation of Article 10

Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,830
(costs and expenses)

– case of Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 4):

Violation of Article 10

Just satisfaction: EUR 130 (pecuniary damage), EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,680 (costs and expenses)

– case of Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 5):

Violation of Article 10

Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,700 (costs and expenses)(echrcaselaw.com editing).