FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 5) - 17229/13 (Judgment : Freedom of expression : Third Section) [2018] ECHR 783 (02 October 2018)

FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 5) - 17229/13 (Judgment : Freedom of expression : Third Section) [2018] ECHR 783 (02 October 2018)

The domestic courts failed to apply the standards established by the Court's case-law under Article 10, did not sufficiently distinguish between value judgments and statements of fact, and did not provide sufficient reasons to justify the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression. The interference was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ECHR 783
Parties
Applicant: Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko; Respondent: Russian Federation; Plaintiff in Domestic Proceedings: Mikhail Klimov
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights (echr) Under Article 34 of the Convention / Judgment on Merits and Just Satisfaction
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; just satisfaction awarded.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Balancing of Rights, Just Satisfaction
Human Rights Law Media Law Civil Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Balancing of Rights Just Satisfaction

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 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Mikhail Klimov

Plaintiff in Domestic Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights (echr) Under Article 34 of the Convention / Judgment on Merits and Just Satisfaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the domestic courts' judgments against the applicant for defamation violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The domestic courts failed to apply the standards established by the Court's case-law under Article 10, did not sufficiently distinguish between value judgments and statements of fact, and did not provide sufficient reasons to justify the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression. The interference was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and not necessary in a democratic society.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax chargeable.
  • The respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 1,700 in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax chargeable.