OOO IVPRESS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (NO. 1) - 33501/04 35258/05 35618/05 38608/04 - HEJUD [2013] ECHR 67 (22 January 2013)

OOO IVPRESS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (NO. 1) - 33501/04 35258/05 35618/05 38608/04 - HEJUD [2013] ECHR 67 (22 January 2013)

The Russian courts failed to distinguish between value judgments and statements of fact, required proof of value judgments, and did not balance the right to freedom of expression against the need to protect reputation, particularly regarding criticism of public officials on matters of public interest. This failure was not in conformity with Article 10 of the Convention, resulting in a violation.

Citation
[2013] ECHR 67
Parties
Applicant: OOO Ivpress; Applicant: Valeriy Alekseyevich Smetanin; Applicant: Aleksey Yurievich Ovchinnikov; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
22 January 2013
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Judgment on Merits and Just Satisfaction
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found in all four sets of proceedings; just satisfaction awarded for pecuniary damage and costs; non-pecuniary damage satisfied by finding of violation; remainder of claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Press Freedom, Protection of Reputation, Balancing Rights
Human Rights Law Media Law Civil Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Press Freedom Protection of Reputation Balancing Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OOO Ivpress

Applicant

Valeriy Alekseyevich Smetanin

Applicant

Aleksey Yurievich Ovchinnikov

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Judgment on Merits and Just Satisfaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Russian courts' judgments in defamation proceedings against the applicants violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society

Ratio Decidendi

The Russian courts failed to distinguish between value judgments and statements of fact, required proof of value judgments, and did not balance the right to freedom of expression against the need to protect reputation, particularly regarding criticism of public officials on matters of public interest. This failure was not in conformity with Article 10 of the Convention, resulting in a violation.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found in all four sets of proceedings; just satisfaction awarded for pecuniary damage and costs; non-pecuniary damage satisfied by finding of violation; remainder of claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Russian Federation to pay applicants jointly EUR 3,510 for pecuniary damage plus tax.
  • Russian Federation to pay applicants jointly EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses plus tax.