FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (no. 2) - 48195/06 [2010] ECHR 152 (11 February 2010)

FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (no. 2) - 48195/06 [2010] ECHR 152 (11 February 2010)

The domestic courts failed to distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments, requiring the applicant to prove the truth of value judgments, and did not establish a pressing social need for prioritizing the civil servant's personality rights over the applicant's freedom of expression and the public...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ECHR 152
Parties
Applicant: Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; just satisfaction awarded.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Press Freedom, Public Officials, Civil Damages
Human Rights Law Media Law Civil Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Press Freedom Public Officials Civil Damages

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention was violated by domestic defamation judgments against him.

Ratio Decidendi

The domestic courts failed to distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments, requiring the applicant to prove the truth of value judgments, and did not establish a pressing social need for prioritizing the civil servant's personality rights over the applicant's freedom of expression and the public interest in press freedom. The interference was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; just satisfaction awarded.

Orders

  • The respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 485 in respect of pecuniary damage.
  • The respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.