BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ZAO IZDATELSKIY DOM RISK v Russia - 37908/04 [2010] ECHR 1489 (16 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1489.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1489 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
37908/04
by ZAO IZDATELSKIY DOM RISK
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth
Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou,
judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 September 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, ZAO Izdatelskiy Dom “Risk” (закрытое акционерное общество «Издательский дом «Риск»), is a privately held joint stock company incorporated under the laws of Russia in Kyzyl, the Republic of Tyva. The applicant company was represented before the Court by Mr S. Konviz, its Chief Executive. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant company is the founder and publisher of a weekly newspaper, Risk, with a circulation of 3,000 copies. The newspaper is published and distributed in Kyzyl.
In issue no. 16 for 1-7 August 2003 the Risk newspaper published an article entitled 'Turkmenbashi psycho ward' («Психбольница имени Туркменбаши») containing critical statements concerning Mr Saparmurat Niyazov, the then President of Turkmenistan. The article was accompanied by the editorial team's comments (от редакции), which stated, in particular:
“After getting to know Turkmenbashi's deeds, one starts, against one's will, to draw a parallel between him and [Mr O.]. The same irrepressible lust for power, the same selfishness resembling the personality cult, but after the Tyva fashion, capriciousness and swagger ...”
Mr O., the then Chairman of the Government of the Republic of Tyva, brought civil proceedings against the applicant company and the editing team of the Risk newspaper, arguing that that publication, and notably the editorial team's comments, had disseminated false and defamatory statements damaging to his honour, dignity and professional reputation. He sought a refutation of those statements and compensation in respect of non pecuniary damage.
In a judgment of 17 February 2004 the Kyzyl Town Court confirmed that the dissemination of the impugned information had taken place, given that it had been published in a newspaper with a circulation of 3,000 copies. It further noted that in the light of a resolution of the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia of 18 August 1992 the impugned information contained statements of fact which could objectively be verified, and namely whether Mr O. had, indeed, “[an] irrepressible lust for power, selfishness resembling a personality cult, capriciousness and swagger”. The court went on to say:
“The court has established that in issue no. 16 of 1 August 2003 of the Risk newspaper an article was published entitled 'Turkmenbashi psycho ward' which represented the President of Turkmenistan negatively. At the end of the article are the editorial team's comments containing a statement comparing the President of Turkmenistan with the plaintiff and a statement to the effect that the plaintiff has some of the negative characteristics of the President of Turkmenistan which were mentioned in the article.
The defendants have not adduced any evidence for the accuracy of the disputed statement, whereas by virtue of Article 152 of the Russian Civil Code the burden of proof lies with defendants. Accordingly, the defendants have not proved that the statement disputed by the plaintiff is true.
The court considers that those statements are untrue and damaging to the honour, dignity and professional reputation of the plaintiff in his capacity as a citizen and a public official, as it follows from those statements that the plaintiff has an irrepressible lust for power, selfishness resembling a personality cult, capriciousness and conceited pride.
Public opinion plays an essential role for the plaintiff, who is the Chairman of the Government of the Republic of Tyva, whereas in the said statements he was represented in a negative light as a person breaching moral principles.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims ... should be granted.”
The court thus found that the editorial team's comments in their relevant part were untrue and damaging to the plaintiff's honour, dignity and professional reputation. It further ordered the applicant company to publish in the Risk newspaper, within ten days of the date on which the present judgment became final, a refutation to the effect that by the judgment of the Kyzyl Town Court of 17 February 2004 the aforementioned comments in their relevant part had been found to be untrue and damaging to Mr O.'s honour, dignity and professional reputation, and to pay the plaintiff 10,000 Russian roubles (approximately 260 euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
On 20 April 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tyva upheld the above judgment on appeal, largely relying on the reasoning of the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant company complained under Article 10 of the Convention that its right to freedom of expression had been violated. It claimed, in particular, that, contrary to the conclusions of the domestic courts, the impugned information had contained value judgments rather than statements of facts and therefore could not have been objectively verified. The applicant company also relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention without any further explanation.
THE LAW
By letter dated 16 July 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant company, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 17 September 2009.
By letter dated 25 January 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant company was notified that the period allowed for submission of its observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the applicant company was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant company received this letter on 25 February 2010. However, no response followed.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
