ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA - 42911/08 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section)) [2017] ECHR 197 (21 February 2017)

ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA - 42911/08 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section)) [2017] ECHR 197 (21 February 2017)

The Court found that the domestic authorities failed to properly distinguish between information and campaigning, and imposed disproportionate restrictions on the applicant organisation's freedom of expression by classifying critical articles as 'election campaigning' and imposing a fine, thus violating Article 10 of the Convention.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 197
Parties
Applicant Organisation: Redaktsiya Gazety Orlovskaya Iskra; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Election Campaigning, Media Regulation, Administrative Offences
Human Rights Law Election Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Election Campaigning Media Regulation Administrative Offences

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

Parties

Redaktsiya Gazety Orlovskaya Iskra

Applicant Organisation

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the classification of published articles as 'election campaigning' and the imposition of a fine violated Article 10 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether domestic law and practice regarding media activity during elections are compatible with freedom of expression

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the domestic authorities failed to properly distinguish between information and campaigning, and imposed disproportionate restrictions on the applicant organisation's freedom of expression by classifying critical articles as 'election campaigning' and imposing a fine, thus violating Article 10 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found

Orders

  • The judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.
  • The applicant organisation is entitled to compensation for the violation.