OOO KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA - KALUGA v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

OOO KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA - KALUGA v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications (CtEDO, 2023)

Publicat la 5 iunie 2023 SECTIUNEA TÂRTA ÎNCHIEREA ÎNCHIEREA nr. 5411/20 OOO Komsomolskaya Pravda - Kaluga împotriva Rusiei și alte 11 cereri (vezi lista anexată) comunicate la 19 mai 2023 SUBJECTUL CASEI Cele doisprezece cereri în discuție se referă la diferite restricții la exercitarea dreptului la libertatea de exprimare experimentate de jurnaliști și mass-media din Federația Rusă între 2018 și 2022.Pentru detalii despre evenimentele și procedurile interne din fiecare cerere, vezi anexa II.ÎNCHIEREA ÎNCHIERILOR ÎNĂRE ÎN CONTRA PARTII ARTICOLUL 10 1.A existat o încălcare a dreptului reclamantelor la libertatea de exprimare garantat de art. 10 din Convenție?În special, măsurile luate sau sancțiunile impuse de autoritățile ruse au fost în mod corespunzător în vederea descurajării participării reclamantelor la procedurile civile ale unor reprezentanți ai justiției civile legitime (vezi J.S.S. Güzelv. SICONB. v. Romania, 23 septembrie 1994, nr. 52828, nr. 2828, nr. 28), precum și cererile de aplicare a normelorilor de drept civil nu au fost încă aplicate în ceea ce privește cererile de justiție în ceea ce privește normele interne ale reclamantului (velea S.S.S.S.S.S.R.R.A.A.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.

Turcia, nr. 29483/09, § 34, 13 septembrie 2016, și Delfi AS împotriva Estoniei [GC], nr. 64569/09, § 121, CEDO 2015)? (c) În ceea ce privește cererile nr. 22817/21, 43551/21, 53086/21 și 57924/21, a stabilit cadrul juridic aplicabil garanții capabile să protejeze persoanele fizice de efectele excesive și arbitrare ale măsurilor de blocare cuprinzătoare (a se vedea Engels împotriva Rusiei, nr. 619/16, § 34, 23 iunie 2020)? (d) În ceea ce privește cererile nr. 4045/22 și 28925/22, motivele date de autoritățile administrative pentru perchezițiile domiciliilor jurnaliștilor relevant și sufficient au fost? Având în vedere marja de apreciere acordată autorităților administrative, nu a fost aplicarea măsurii de ingerință în mod proporțional cu scopul legitim?

A existat o încălcare a articolului 18 din Convenție, luată în legătură cu art. 10 (a se vedea Navalnyy împotriva Rusiei [GC], nr. 29580/12 și alții 4, §§ 163-76, 15 noiembrie 2018)? ANN I: LISTA Cazurilor din cauza n. cererea PER. Numele cazului depus pe reclamantul/contracontracontractantul (a se vedea Ecodefence și alții împotriva Rusiei, nr. 9988/13 și alții 60), anul de naștere/naționalitatea operațiunii/statutul de încorporare a Rusiei Reprezentat de: Sergei Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Smirnovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich Snovovich

Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV 6. 43551/21 The Independent Barentsobserver As v. Russia 12/08/2021 THE INDEPENDENT BARENTSOBSERVER AS media outlet 2015 Kirkenes Norvegia (acreditată în fața Ministerului Rusiei de Externe) Dl Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV 7. 53086/21 Albats și OOO Novyye Vremena împotriva Rusiei 07/10/2021 Dnă Yevgeniya Markovna ALBATS Editor-șef al New Times media outlet Moscow Russian OOO Novy Vremena Fondator, consiliu editorial și editor al New Times online media outlet 2013 Moscova Rusia Dl Tumas Arsenovich MISAKANIA Novaya Editorul online al ziarului Moscova Rusia Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya Novaya

Dnă Mariya Viktorovna ZHOLOBOVA Jurnalist 1988 Zvenigorod Rusă Dl Mikhail Arkadyevich Jurnalist RUBIN 1988 Moscova Rusă Domeniul cererii Instanțe interne Rezultatul procedurii interne 1. 5411/20 OOO TASSOMOLSKYA Pravda - Kaluga 28/10/2022 Dl Ilya Vilyamovich AZAR Jurnalist 1984 Moscova Rusă Dl Leonid Alekseyevich SOLOVYEV ANEX II: FACTE Cererile marcate cu un semn plus (+) conțin, pe lângă plângerea principală în temeiul articolului 10 din Convenție, plângeri care intră sub incidența jurisprudenței bine stabilite a Curții. nr. Cerere Subiectul cererii Instanțe interne Rezultatul procedurii interne 1. 5411/20 OOO TASSOMOLSKYA Pravda - Kaluga 28/10/2022 Dl Ilya Vilyamovich AZAR Jurnalist 1984 Moscova Rusă Dl Leonid Alekseyevich SOLOVYEV ANEX II: FACTE Cererile marcate cu un semn plus (+) conțin, pe lângă plângerea principală în temeiul articolului 10 din Convenție, plângeri care intră sub incidența jurisprudenței bine stabilite a Curții. nr. Subiectul cererii Instanțe interne Rezultatul procedurii interne 1. 5411/20 OOO Kassomskaya Pravda - Kaluga 18/10/20 Kaluga Judecătorul din 18/05/2018 și 23/05/2018 s-ul a apărut în instanța de primă a căzut două cereri de despărire a celor doi reclamanți pentru despărțare a unui prejudiciu, fiecare dintre ele fiind de natură civilă, în cauză că nu au fost desemnăscute de natură de un anumit, în cauză că nu au fost de natură de o anumite copaci de locuri, iar în fața instanței publice.

La 20/01/2021 domnul Smirnov a publicat pe pagina sa de Facebook o fotografie a unui muzician punk rus, domnul D.S., însoțită de cuvintele Stabul Navalnyy / D.S. pentru Navalnyy / 23 ianuarie [la] 2 dimineața (timpul mitingului planificat atunci pentru susținerea domnului Navalnyy). domnul Smirnov nu a participat niciodată la mitingul din 23/01/2021. la 30/01/2021 la 1.40 p.m. reclamantul a fost arestat când părăsea blocul de apartamente cu un fiu minor și a fost acuzat de o infracțiune administrativă a organizării repetate a unui eveniment administrativ neautorizat (art. 20.2 § 8 din Gazeta Administrativă a Rusiei). Raportul poliției a fost publicat pe site-ul de internet www.ONov.ru.

Transneft a intentat o acțiune civilă împotriva societății reclamante pentru a-și proteja reputația de afaceri cerând despăgubiri de daune non-materiale (reputaționale) în valoare de 10.000.000 de ruble. (ii) 28/01/2020, Curtea Supremă de Apel a IX-a Commercială: Hotărârea din 11/11/2019 a fost confirmată în apărare în întregime deși legea rusă nu conține norme privind astfel de daune non-materiale (reputaționale). (i) 11/11/2019, Curtea Comercială din Moscova: Cererile Transneft au fost acordate în parte, a ordonat retragerea și a acordat 1.500.000 de ruble în despăgubiri de daune non-materiale (reputaționale) în valoare de 10.000.000 de ruble. (ii) 28/01/2020, Curtea Supremă de Apel a IX-a Commercială: hotărârea din 11/11/2019 a fost confirmată în apărare în întregime (iii) 28/05/2020, a doua instanță a Curții Commerciale din Moscova: În ziua următoare, în cadrul unei demonstrații de protest, domnul S. Smir S. Azarov S. a fost concediat la prima instanță de poliție din Moscova. (i) T. S. S. S. S. S. S. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T

La 13/12/2018 MediaZona a publicat online un articol care acoperea sinuciderea domnului I.P. în urma presupuselor torturi de către poliție. Articolul spunea că decedatul a sărit de pe acoperiș și a indicat locul căderii sale. Roskomnadzor a inclus site-ul MediaZona în Registrul Unificat al site-urilor web care conțin informații interzise pentru diseminare în Rusia din cauza promovării sinuciderii; compania reclamantă a fost notificată în consecință la 24/12/2018.

Compania reclamantă a depus o cerere administrativă în care a solicitat declararea deciziei Roskomnadzorului ilegală, dar fără rezultat. (i) 25/07/2019, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: cererile companiei reclamante împotriva Alb Albnadzor au fost respinse în întregime. (ii) 22/01/2020, Moscow City Supreme Court: hotărârea de primă instanță a fost confirmată în întregime. (iii) 19/08/2020, a doua instanță de apel a Jurisdicției Generale: Roskomnadzor a introdus o cerere administrativă în care a solicitat declararea deciziei Roskomnadzorului ilegală, dar fără rezultat. (i) 25/07/2019, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: cererile companiei reclamante împotriva Albnadzor au fost respinse în întregime. (ii) 22/01/2020, Moscow City Supreme Court: hotărârea de primă instanță a fost confirmată în întregime. (iii) 19/01/2020, a doua instanță de apel a Jurisdicției generale: Roskomnadzor a publicat în data de 7/01/2020, în urma unei cereri de a doua instanță, în care au fost respinsăcute două organizații, respectiv, pe motiv de persecuție, pe site-ul web al organizației extremiste Martorii lui Iehova, Omer S.Omer S.Omer S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S

În 2016 domnul Anin a publicat în Novaya Gazeta un articol despre fosta soție a domnului Igor Sechin, directorul executiv al Rosneft și a fost dat în judecată de acesta din urmă (pentru detalii cu privire la încălcarea articolului 10 constatată în această privință, a se vedea Novaya Gazeta și alții împotriva Rusiei [Comitetul], nr. 83662/17 și 46808/20, 10 ianuarie 2023).La 20/09/2016 a fost deschisă o anchetă penală în legătură cu presupusa încălcare a vieții private a doamnei O.S.. Aceasta a fost suspendată în aprilie 2017 și reluată în martie 2021.La 07/04/2021 a fost emis un mandat de percheziție judiciară în ceea ce privește Anins.La 09/04/2021 a fost efectuată percheziția și documentele, laptopurile, telefoanele, USB-urile și hard-urile domnului Anins au fost confiscate. (i) La 07/2021, trei articole false au fost publicate de către Aneta Rosneeta, iar pe data de 24.07.2021 au fost concediate de către Aneta Rosneeta, în cadrul Curții Generale a Rusiei. (i) La data de 13.02.2021, a fost blocată în mod efectiv o serie de informații în numele autorităților din cadrul Curții, iar în schimbul a fost aplicat de către Aneta, în cazul în care a fost introdusă o amenzie împotriva societății Novaya Gazeta (i) a Rusiei (i) a fost blocată de către o serie de măsuri de informații de tip "expresă" (i) și de informații de tip "expresie" (i) în temeiul articolului "R" (ii) din data de 11.02.02.02.2021, iar pe data de 13.02.20 a fost deschisă în instanța rusă, cererea de a domnă (i) a domnsului Anins a Rusiei a Rusiei a Rusiei a fost respinsă (i) a fost respinspectată de către o cererea de a autoritățile de a Rusiei de a Rusiei de a Rusiei de a să-

20.3.3 § 1 din CAO (discreditarea armatei ruse), fiecare având drept rezultat o amendă de 400.000 de ruble. (d) Toate accesurile de pe teritoriul Rusiei la cele trei site-uri web conduse de compania reclamantă (www.novaya.no , www.novayagazeta.ru , www.novayagazeta.media) au fost blocate de Roskomnadzor în temeiul secțiunii 15.32) din Legea Informațiilor pe baza unei cereri din partea Procurorului General al Rusiei. (e) Licențele a două ediții tipărite (Novaya Gazeta și Novaya Rassadz Gazeta ta) și ale mass-mediei electronice (www.novayagazeta.ru) au fost revocate pe baza următoarelor măsuri în cadrul procedurii inițiate de Roskomnadzor, iar acuzații de restricție ale acestora au indicat că reclamantul beneficiază de toate activitățile curente ale doamnei S. Novayagazeta, în temeiul secțiunii 15.32) din Legea Informațiilor, dar nu a putut să beneficieze de alte măsuri administrative până la 15 martie 2022 (secțiunea 2.22 din Legea nr. 393 din Novaya Gazeta) În temeiul următoarelor măsuri, doamna a anunțat că nu poate beneficia de alte măsuri de restricții în temeiul actelorilor de restricționare ale acțiuni ale S.

(1) Novaya Gazeta și domnul Muratov (1) patru seturi de cereri administrative de contestație a cererilor depuse de către solicitanți au fost respinse de către un tribunal de primă instanță, o procedură de confirmare a apelului este în curs de desfășurare în fața Tribunalului Orașului Moscova (2) 06/07/2022, 10/08/2022, 14/09/2022, Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow (3) Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow (4): cererile de apărare ale reclamanților sunt considerate vinovate în întregime la 9/20/15 din cele de la 13.Octombrie, iar cele două licențe de acționare ale reclamantului, condamnat la prima instanță, vor fi retrase în curând de către judecătorii de la Curtea de Apel a Orașului Moscova (5) T.O. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T

23/05/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: cererile reclamantelor respingute integral. 09/02/2023, Moscow City Court: hotărârea de primă instanță confirmată în apel. 18/07/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: cererile reclamantelor respingute integral. Procedurile de apel sunt în curs de desfășurare în fața Tribunalului Municipal Moscova. (b) 04/08/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: cererile reclamantelor respingute integral, deoarece acțiunile autorităților se bazau pe art. 11 din Legea privind extremismul. Procedurile de apel sunt în curs de desfășurare în fața Tribunalului Municipal Moscova. 11. 28925/22+ Badanin și alții În 2017, domnul Badanin, doamna Zobholova și domnul Rubin, jurnaliști la USB TV (Zobholtv) au solicitat să fie cercetați în întregime. www.tv.tv.rain.org, au fost apoi percheziționați în același statut penal.

La 07/04/2022, un parchet a întocmit un raport de infracțiune administrativă în temeiul art. 20.3.3 § 2 din CAO (acțiuni publice care au ca scop discreditarea armatei ruse) în ceea ce privește domnul Azar.

Published on 5 June 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 5411/20

OOO Komsomolskaya Pravda - Kaluga against Russia

and 11 other applications

(see list appended)

communicated on 19 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The twelve applications under consideration concern various restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression experienced by journalists and media outlets in the Russian Federation between 2018 and 2022. For details of the events and domestic proceedings in each of the applications, see Annex II.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

COMMON QUESTION UNDER ARTICLE 10

1.

Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the Russian authorities discourage the participation of the media in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see

Jersild v. Denmark

, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298, and

NIT

S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova

[GC], no. 28470/12, § 178, 5 April 2022)?

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 10

2.

(a)

As regards applications nos. 5411/20 and 16278/21, did the domestic courts apply in the civil defamation proceedings against the applicants the standards that were in conformity with the standards of the Court’s case-law concerning freedom of the media (see

Skudayeva v. Russia

, no. 24014/07, 5

March 2019)?

(b)

As regards application no.

14662/21, was the applicant’s administrative-offence conviction for the presumed “organisation” of a peaceful yet unauthorised assembly foreseeable (see

Semir Güzel

v. Turkey

, no. 29483/09, § 34, 13 September 2016, and

Delfi AS v. Estonia

[GC], no.

64569/09, § 121, ECHR 2015)?

(c)

As regards applications nos.

22817/21, 43551/21, 53086/21 and

57924/21, did the applicable legal framework establish safeguards capable of protecting individuals from excessive and arbitrary effects of sweeping blocking measures (see

Engels v. Russia

, no. 61919/16, §

34, 23 June 2020)?

(d)

As regards applications nos. 4045/22 and 28925/22, were the reasons given by the authorities for the searches of the journalists’ homes “relevant” and “sufficient”? Having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities, was the interference proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued? Did it correspond to a “pressing social need” (see

Nagla v. Latvia

, no. 73469/10, §§ 93-94, 16 July 2013)?

(e)

As regards application no. 11884/22, were the applicants afforded a measure of protection against arbitrariness required by the rule of law in a democratic society when their licences were revoked (see

Centro Europa

7

S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy

[GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 139-43, ECHR

2012, and

Mukhin v. Russia

, no.

3642/10, §§ 179-82, 14 December 2021)?

(f)

As regards application no. 53150/22, does Article 20.3.3 § 2 of the CAO meet the “quality of law” requirement? Was Mr Azar’s administrative

‑

offence conviction for having published an anti-war statement on a social media account “necessary in a democratic society”?

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN APPLICATION No. 11884/22

3.

Has there been a breach of the obligations under Article 34 of the Convention on account of the Government’s failure to comply with the interim measure indicated to them (see

Ecodefence and Others v. Russia

, nos.

9988/13 and 60 others, §§ 192-95, 14 June 2022)?

4.

Has there been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 10 (see

Navalnyy v. Russia

[GC], nos. 29580/12 and

4 others, §§ 163-76, 15 November 2018)?

ANNEX I

:

LIST OF CASES

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant/Applicant company

Profession/Function

Year of Birth/Registration

Place of Residence/Operation

Nationality/State of Incorporation

Represented by

1.

5411/20

OOO Komsomolskaya Pravda - Kaluga v.

Russia

27/12/2019

OOO KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA – KALUGA

Founder of the “

Kaluga Crossroads

” regional newspaper and of the www.kp40.ru online media outlet

1995

Kaluga

Russia

Ms Galina Yuryevna ARAPOVA

2.

14662/21

Smirnov v.

Russia

16/02/2021

Mr Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV

Editor-in-chief of the

MediaZona

media outlet

1975

Moscow

Russian

Mr Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK

3.

16278/21

ZAO Redaktsyya ‘Nezavisimoy Gazety’ v.

Russia

22/03/2021

ZAO REDAKTSYYA ‘NEZAVISIMOY GAZETY’

Editorial board of the

Nezavisimaya Gazeta

newspaper

1996

Moscow

Russia

Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich YAGELNITSKIY

4.

16896/21

Smirnov v.

Russia

13/03/2021

Mr Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV

Editor-in-chief of the

MediaZona

media outlet

1975

Moscow

Russian

Mr Grigoriy Sergeyevich CHERVONNYY

5.

22817/21

OOO ZP v.

Russia

23/04/2021

OOO ZP

Editorial board of the

MediaZona

media outlet

2014

Moscow

Russia

Mr Damir

Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV

6.

43551/21

The Independent Barentsobserver As v.

Russia

12/08/2021

THE INDEPENDENT BARENTSOBSERVER AS

Media outlet

2015

Kirkenes

Norway (accredited before the Russian MFA)

Mr Maksim Vladimirovich OLENICHEV

7.

53086/21

Albats and OOO

Novyye Vremena v.

Russia

07/10/2021

Ms Yevgeniya Markovna ALBATS

Editor-in-chief of the

New Times

media outlet

1958

Moscow

Russian

OOO Novyye Vremena

Founder, editorial board, and publisher of the

New Times

online media outlet

2013

Moscow

Russia

Mr Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN

8.

57924/21

Smirnov v.

Russia

13/11/2021

Mr Sergey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV

Editor-in-chief of the

MediaZona

media outlet

1975

Moscow

Russian

Mr Damir

Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV

9.

4045/22

Anin v. Russia

12/12/2021

Mr Roman Aleksandrovich ANIN

Journalist, editor-in-chief of the

Vazhnyye Istorii

media outlet

1986

Yaroslavl

Russian

Mr Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN

10.

11884/22

Novaya Gazeta and Others v.

Russia

03/03/2022

ANO “Redaktsionno-Izdatelskiy Dom ‘NOVAYA

GAZETA’”

Publisher of the

Novaya Gazeta

newspaper, the

Novaya Rasskaz Gazeta

online media outlet

1998

Russia

Mr Dmitriy Andreyevich MURATOV

Editor-in-chief of the

Novaya Gazeta

newspaper

1961

Moscow

Russian

OOO Telekanal Dozhd

Founder of the

Dozhd

television channel (TV Rain)

2008

Moscow

Russia

Ms Natalya Vladimirovna SINDEYEVA

Chief executive official of OOO Telekanal Dozhd

1971

Moscow

Russian

Mr Yaroslav Sergeyevich KOZHEUROV

11.

28925/22

Badanin and Others v. Russia

26/05/2022

Mr Roman Sergeyevich BADANIN

Journalist, editor-in-chief of the

Proekt

media outlet

1976

Moscow

Russian

Ms Mariya Viktorovna ZHOLOBOVA

Journalist

1988

Zvenigorod

Russian

Mr Mikhail Arkadyevich RUBIN

Journalist

1988

Moscow

Russian

Mr Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN

12.

53150/22

Azar v.

Russia

28/10/2022

Mr Ilya Vilyamovich AZAR

Journalist

1984

Moscow

Russian

Mr Leonid Alekseyevich SOLOVYEV

ANNEX II: FACTS

Applications marked with a plus sign (+) contain, in addition to the main complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, complaints falling under the Court’s well-established case-law.

No.

Application

Subject-matter of the application

Domestic courts

Outcome of the domestic proceedings

1.

5411/20

OOO Komsomolskaya Pravda - Kaluga

On 18/05/2018 and 23/05/2018 two publications appeared in the applicant company’s media outlets decrying the felling of trees near a local school on the initiative of two members of the Russian State Duma, Mr

K.S. and Mr S.P. who had wished to build a parking lot.

Mr K.S. and Mr S.P. brought civil proceedings for defamation claiming, in particular, 500,000

Russian roubles (RUB) each in compensation of non-pecuniary damage.

(i)

09/08/2018, Kaluzhskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region: the claimants’ claims dismissed in full owing to the lack of the tarnishing nature of the disseminated statements.

(ii)

12/11/2018, Kaluga Regional Court: the first-instance judgment quashed on appeal, a new judgment delivered finding for the claimants and awarding each of them RUB

20,000 in compensation of non-pecuniary damage.

(iii)

25/05/2019, a judge of the Kaluga Regional Court: the first cassation appeal rejected.

(iv)

27/06/2019, Supreme Court of Russia: the second cassation appeal rejected.

2.

14662/21+

Smirnov

On 20/01/2021 Mr Smirnov published on his Facebook page a photo of a Russian punk musician Mr D.S. accompanied by the words “Navalnyy’s Headquarters / D.S. for Navalnyy / 23 January [at] 2 a.m.” (the time of the then planned rally to support Mr Navalnyy).

Mr Smirnov never participated in the rally held on 23/01/2021.

At 1.40 p.m. on 30/01/2021 the applicant was arrested when leaving his block of flats with a minor son and charged with an administrative offence of the repeated organisation of an unauthorised public event (Art. 20.2 §

8 of the CAO). The police report read that “at 9.43 a.m. on 20/01/2021 [Mr Smirnov] [had] committed the organisation of a public event without lodging a [prior] notification”. Mr Smirnov was released from the police station at 9.50 p.m. on 30/01/2021.

At 5 a.m. on 04/02/2021 Mr Smirnov was placed in Sakharovo to serve his administrative-offence conviction.

(i)

03/02/2021, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow:

conviction under Art. 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, sentence of twenty

‑

five days of administrative detention in the then overcrowded Sakharovo temporary detention centre.

(ii)

08/02/2021, Moscow City Court: conviction upheld, sentence diminished to fifteen days of administrative arrest.

3.

16278/21

ZAO Redaktsiya Nezavisimoy Gazety

On 20/06/2019 an article “We shall compound. The truth about the ‘dirty’ oil” was published on the

Nezavisimaya Gazeta

website (

www.ng.ru

) describing

Transneft’s

practice of “compounding” crude oil products.

On 12/07/2019

Transneft

brought civil proceedings against the applicant company “to protect its business reputation” claiming compensation of “non

‑

material (reputational) damage” in the amount of RUB

10,000,000.

The domestic courts found for

Transneft

and made an award in respect of “non

‑

material (reputational) damage” even though the Russian law contains no norms concerning such “non

‑

material (reputational) damage”.

(i)

11/11/2019, Commercial Court of Moscow:

Transneft’s

claims granted in part, ordered a retraction and awarded RUB

1,500,000 in compensation of “non

‑

material (reputational) damage.

(ii)

28/01/2020, Ninth Appellate Commercial Court: judgment of 11/11/2019 upheld on appeal in full.

(iii)

28/05/2020, Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit: the first cassation appeal dismissed.

(iv)

24/09/2020, Supreme Court of Russia: the second cassation appeal dismissed.

4.

16896/21+

Smirnov

On 28/05/2020 a series of solo static demonstrations (“rotating solo demonstrations”) was held in Moscow and St Petersburg in support of Mr

Ilya Azar, then recently arrested for his own solo static demonstration.

At 3.45 p.m. on that day Mr

Smirnov placed himself next to the police headquarters in Moscow holding a placard that read “Azar stood here, bring him back!”. Three seconds later police officers apprehended Mr

Smirnov.

At 4.30 p.m. on the same day he was brought to a police station and placed in a cage. He was released at 9.30 p.m. on 28/05/2020.

(i)

15/07/2020, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow:

conviction under Art. 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, administrative fine of RUB 15,000.

(ii)

14/09/2020, Moscow City Court: conviction and sentence upheld in full.

5.

22817/21

OOO ZP

On 13/12/2018

MediaZona

published online an article covering suicide of Mr

I.P. following his alleged torture by the police. The article read that the deceased had jumped off the roof and indicated the place of his fall.

Roskomnadzor

put the

MediaZona

website on its Unified Register of websites containing information prohibited for dissemination in Russia on account of promoting suicide; the applicant company was notified accordingly on 24/12/2018.

Following the

Roskomnadzor

decision,

MediaZona

removed from the article the details regarding the place and method of suicide, but the ban remained in place.

The applicant company lodged an administrative claim seeking to declare the

Roskomnadzor’s

decision illegal but to no avail.

(i)

16/04/2019, Taganskiy District Court of Moscow: the applicant company’s claims against

Roskomnadzor

dismissed in full.

(ii)

16/10/2019, Moscow City Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal in full.

(iii)

24/01/2020, Second Cassation Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction: the first cassation appeal rejected.

(iv)

23/10/2020, Supreme Court of Russia: the second cassation appeal rejected.

6.

43551/21

The Independent Barentsobserver As

On 14/01/2019 the applicant company published online an article describing the life path of a gay man, including his attempted suicide.

On 29/01/2019

Roskomnadzor

informed the applicant company that the webpage containing the article had been included in the Unified Register of websites containing information prohibited for dissemination in Russia and requested the applicant company to delete the article.

The applicant company did not comply with the

Roskomnadzor

notice.

On 18/02/2019

Roskomnadzor

blocked access to the entire website in Russia.

The applicant company lodged an administrative claim seeking to declare the

Roskomnadzor’s

decision illegal but to no avail.

(i)

25/07/2019, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: the applicant company’s claims against

Roskomnadzor

dismissed in full.

(ii)

22/01/2020, Moscow City Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal in full.

(iii)

19/08/2020, Second Cassation Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction: the first cassation appeal rejected.

(iv)

12/02/2021, Supreme Court of Russia: the second cassation appeal rejected.

7.

53086/21

Albats and OOO Novyye Vremena

On 19/11/2020 an article by Mr Smirnov of

MediaZona

entitled “Sergey Smirnov on the latest pretext for the blocking of websites” was published on the

New Times

website (

www.newtimes.ru

). The article concerned the Russian authorities persecuting various groups, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses that had been declared “an extremist organisation”.

On 18/01/2021

Roskomnadzor

drew up two administrative offence reports under Art. 13.15 § 2 of the CAO in respect of OOO Novyye Vremena and Ms

Albats, respectively, on account of a reference to the Jehovah’s Witnesses without noting that it was an “extremist organisation”.

The applicants removed Mr

Smirnov’s article from the website.

The domestic courts in two sets of administrative-offence proceedings found the applicants guilty under Art.

13.15 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced to fines.

1.

OOO Novyye Vremena

(i)

19/02/2021, Justice of the Peace of Circuit No. 367 of the Tverskoy District of Moscow: a fine of RUB

40,000.

(ii)

08/04/2021, Tverskoy District Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal.

2.

Ms Albats

(i)

09/03/2021, Justice of the Peace of Circuit No. 367 of the Tverskoy District of Moscow: a fine of RUB 4,000.

(ii)

16/04/2021, Tverskoy District Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal.

8.

57924/21+

Smirnov

On 11/01/2021 a journalist at

MediaZona

(

www.zona.media

) attended and reported online on a court hearing involving an alleged member of the

Artpodgotovka

movement that had been formally prohibited as “extremist” in the Russian Federation.

On 01/03/2021

Roskomnadzor

drew up an administrative-offence report under Art. 13.15 § 2 of the CAO (abuse of the freedom of the media by disseminating the information concerning an “extremist” organisation) in respect of Mr

Smirnov as the

MediaZona

editor-in-chief for failing to mention that

Artpodgotovka

’s activities were prohibited. The article was immediately corrected to insert the required mention.

(i)

01/04/2021, Justice of the Peace of Precinct no. 360 of the Basmannyy District of Moscow: conviction under 13.15 § 2 of the CAO, a fine of RUB

4,000.

(ii)

19/05/2021, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow: conviction and sentence upheld in full.

9.

4045/22+

Anin

In 2016 Mr Anin published in

Novaya Gazeta

an article about the then wife of Mr

Igor Sechin, the CEO of

Rosneft

and was sued by the latter (for the details regarding the violation of Article 10 found in this respect, see

Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia

[Committee], nos. 83662/17 and 46808/20, 10

January 2023).

On 20/09/2016 a criminal investigation was opened into the alleged breach of Ms O.S.’s privacy. It was suspended in April 2017 and resumed in March 2021.

On 07/04/2021 a court search warrant was issued in respect of Mr Anin’s flat. On 09/04/2021 the search was conducted, and Mr Anin’s documents, laptops, smartphones, USB and hard drives were seized.

(i)

07/04/2021, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow: the search of Mr

Anin’s flat authorised.

(ii) 21/06/2021, Moscow City Court: the applicant’s appeal against the search warrant dismissed.

10.

11884/22

Novaya Gazeta and Others v. Russia

1

.

Novaya Gazeta

and Mr Muratov

Since 24/02/2022 the Russian authorities imposed on the applicant company a series of restrictive measures that effectively made it impossible for the applicant company to continue its publishing activities.

(a)

Four articles published at

www.novayagazeta.ru

were blocked by

Roskomnadzor

on the basis of “demands” by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia.

(b)

Three sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 13.15 § 9 of the CAO (“disseminating fake information”), opened for using the word “war” in the

Novaya Gazeta

materials instead of the expression “special military operation”, resulted in fines ranging from RUB

300,000 to RUB

400,000.

(c)

Two sets of administrative-offence proceedings under Art. 20.3.3 § 1 of the CAO (“discreditation of the Russian army”), each of which resulted in a fine of RUB

400,000.

(d)

All access from the Russian territory to the three websites run by the applicant company (

www.novaya.no

,

www.novayagazeta.ru

,

www.novaya.media

)

were blocked by

Roskomnadzor

under section 15.3(2) of the Information Act on the basis of a “demand” by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia.

(e)

Licences of two print editions (

Novaya Gazeta

and

Novaya Rasskaz Gaze

ta) and of the electronic media (

www.novayagazeta.ru

) were revoked on the basis of judgments delivered in the proceedings initiated by

Roskomnadzor

, all activities of the media terminated.

The applicants brought administrative proceedings challenging the restrictive measures but to no avail.

On 08/03/2022 the Court decided to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation the following interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court): “to abstain until further notice from actions and decisions aimed at full blocking and termination of the activities of

Novaya Gazeta

, and from other actions that in the current circumstances could deprive

Novaya Gazeta

of the enjoyment of its rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention”.

2.

OOO Telekanal Dozhd and Ms Sindeyeva

(a)

On 1 and 9 March 2022 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia sent to

Roskomnadzor

two “demands” under section 15.3 of the Information Act to restrict access to the

Dozhd

website (

www.tvrain.ru

) because of “false information regarding the nature of the special military operation”.

(b)

On 3 March 2022 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia sent to the applicants two “warnings” regarding materials on the

Dozhd

Youtube channel containing “calls to extremist and terrorist activities”.

The applicants brought administrative proceedings challenging the “demands” and “warnings” but to no avail.

1

.

Novaya Gazeta

and Mr Muratov

(a)

four sets of administrative claims challenging the “demands” brought by the applicants rejected by a first-instance court, appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court.

(b)

06/07/2022, 10/08/2022, 14/09/2022, Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow: the defendants found guilty under Art. 13.15 § 9 of the CAO in the first instance and sentenced to fines in three sets of proceedings.

Appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court.

(c)

13/09/2022, 18/01/2023, Tverskoy District Court: the applicant company found guilty of an administrative offence on two counts.

Appeal proceedings will be launched as soon as the applicants are served with the texts of the two judgments in their entirety.

(d)

15/12/2022, Tverskoy District Court: the Prosecutor General’s Office’s “demand” declared lawful.

Appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court.

(e)

05/09/2022, 06/09/2022, Basmannyy District Court of Moscow: administrative claims by Roskomnadzor granted, licences revoked.

07/02/2023, Moscow City Court: the judgments of 05/09/2022 and 06/09/2022 upheld on appeal.

2.

OOO Telekanal Dozhd and Ms Sindeyeva

(a)

23/05/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: the applicants’ claims dismissed in full. 09/02/2023, Moscow City Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal.

18/07/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: the applicants’ claims dismissed in full. Appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court.

(b)

04/08/2022, Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: the applicants’ claims dismissed in full as the authorities’ actions were based on section 11 of the Extremism Act.

Appeal proceedings are pending before the Moscow City Court.

11.

28925/22+

Badanin and Others

In 2017 Mr Badanin, Ms Zholobova and Mr Rubin, then journalists at TV Rain (

Dozhd

) (

www.tvrain.tv

), filmed a documentary alleging close ties between President Putin and Mr T., a criminal, which TV Rain broadcast.

On 14/11/2017 a criminal investigation was opened against the three applicants under Art. 128.1 § 5 of the Criminal Code (aggravated libel). On 29/09/2020 the criminal case was closed owing to the statute of limitations. On 28/06/2021 the investigation was resumed.

On 29/06/2021 an investigator drew up orders to urgently search the flats of Mr

Badanin and Ms

Zholobova, as well as two flats belonging to Mr Rubin. No judicial authorisation was sought on account of emergency. On the same date all four flats were searched, and the applicants’ documents, laptops, smartphones, USB and hard drives seized.

1.

Mr Badanin

(i)

01/07/2021, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg: the investigator’s order to search the applicant’s flat declared lawful, Mr

Badanin’s complaint dismissed (quashed on appeal on 08/09/2021);

04/10/2021, St Petersburg City Court: the investigator’s order declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed.

(ii)

14/12/2021, St Petersburg City Court: the decision of 04/10/2021 upheld.

2.

Ms Zholobova

(i)

01/07/2021, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg: the investigator’s order to search Ms

Zholobova’s flat declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed (quashed on appeal on 01/09/2021);

27/09/2021, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg: the investigator’s order declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed.

(ii)

14/12/2021, St Petersburg City Court: the decision of 27/09/2021 upheld.

3.

Mr Rubin

(i)

01/07/2021, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, two decisions: the investigator’s orders to search Mr

Rubin’s two flats declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed (quashed on appeal on 27/08/2021 and 31/08/2021);

20/09/2021, St Petersburg City Court, two decisions: the investigator’s orders regarding the searches of two flats declared lawful, the applicant’s complaints dismissed.

(ii)

08/12/2021 and 14/12/2021, St

Petersburg City Court: the two decisions of 20/09/2021 upheld.

12.

53150/22

Azar v. Russia

On 28/02/2022 Mr Azar published on his Facebook page a statement that read, in particular, as follows:

“The residential areas of Kharkiv were bombed today either by Grads [self

‑

propelled 122 mm multiple rocket launchers employed by the Russian military] or by something else, civilians have died. This madness must be stopped. ...”

On 07/04/2022 a prosecutor’s office drew up an administrative-offence report under Art. 20.3.3 § 2 of the CAO (“public actions aimed at discrediting the Russian army”) in respect of Mr Azar.

The domestic courts found Mr Azar guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine.

(i)

10/06/2022, the Khamovnicheskiy District Court: a fine of RUB

60,000

(ii)

14/07/2022, Moscow City Court: the first-instance judgment upheld on appeal.