FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 3) - 7972/09 (Judgment : Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section) [2018] ECHR 779 (02 October 2018)

FEDCHENKO v. RUSSIA (No. 3) - 7972/09 (Judgment : Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section) [2018] ECHR 779 (02 October 2018)

The domestic courts failed to distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments, did not sufficiently consider the standards established in ECtHR case-law, and imposed disproportionate interference with the applicant's freedom of expression. The impugned statements were either value judgments or had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ECHR 779
Parties
Applicant: Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; application admissible.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Press Freedom, Damages
Human Rights Civil Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Press Freedom 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 5 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether domestic courts' judgments violated applicant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether interference was necessary in a democratic society
  3. 3 Whether the balancing of Article 10 and Article 8 rights was properly conducted

Ratio Decidendi

The domestic courts failed to distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments, did not sufficiently consider the standards established in ECtHR case-law, and imposed disproportionate interference with the applicant's freedom of expression. The impugned statements were either value judgments or had sufficient factual basis, and the balancing exercise between Article 10 and Article 8 was inadequate. The interference was not necessary in a democratic society.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; application admissible.

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 1,000 in pecuniary damages, EUR 7,500 in non-pecuniary damages, EUR 1,830 in costs and expenses, plus any tax chargeable, within three months; default interest at ECB marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
  • Dismissal of remainder of applicant's claim for just satisfaction.