OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA - 22649/08 (Judgment : Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section) [2020] ECHR 612 (08 September 2020)

OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA - 22649/08 (Judgment : Freedom of expression-{general} : Third Section) [2020] ECHR 612 (08 September 2020)

The Circuit Court failed to demonstrate a pressing social need justifying interference with the applicant company's freedom of expression, did not properly balance the interests of public health and information against the reputational interests of a commercial company, and awarded damages disproportionate to any proven injury. The interference was not necessary in a democratic society and violated Article 10 of the Convention.

Citation
[2020] ECHR 612
Parties
Applicant: OOO Regnum; Respondent: Russian Federation; Claimant: JSC Ramenskiy Molochnyy Kombinat / JSC Vimm-Bill-Dann Napitki
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
08 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention; judgment against the Russian Federation
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Business Reputation, Consumer Protection, Damages
Human Rights Media Law Civil Procedure Freedom of Expression Defamation Business Reputation Consumer Protection Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OOO Regnum

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

JSC Ramenskiy Molochnyy Kombinat / JSC Vimm-Bill-Dann Napitki

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interference with the applicant company's freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society
  2. 2 Whether the award of damages for defamation was proportionate to the injury to reputation
  3. 3 Whether the domestic courts properly balanced the right to freedom of expression against the right to reputation of a commercial company

Ratio Decidendi

The Circuit Court failed to demonstrate a pressing social need justifying interference with the applicant company's freedom of expression, did not properly balance the interests of public health and information against the reputational interests of a commercial company, and awarded damages disproportionate to any proven injury. The interference was not necessary in a democratic society and violated Article 10 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention; judgment against the Russian Federation

Orders

  • Award of EUR 26,996 for pecuniary damage to the applicant company
  • Award of EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant company