FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 4) - 17229/13 (Judgment : Freedom of expression : Third Section) [2018] ECHR 782 (02 October 2018)

FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 4) - 17229/13 (Judgment : Freedom of expression : Third Section) [2018] ECHR 782 (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 disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10.

Citation
[2018] ECHR 782
Parties
Applicant: Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / 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

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 33 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 and Just Satisfaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention was violated by the domestic courts' finding of defamation and imposition of damages.

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 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 130 in pecuniary damage, EUR 7,500 in non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,680 in costs and expenses, plus any tax chargeable, within three months of the judgment becoming final.
  • Default interest at the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points is payable after three months until settlement.