KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA - 9406/05 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section)) [2016] ECHR 1093 (13 December 2016)

KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA - 9406/05 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section)) [2016] ECHR 1093 (13 December 2016)

The domestic courts failed to distinguish between value judgments and factual statements, did not establish an objective link between the statements and the claimants, and did not provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression. The interference was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ECHR 1093
Parties
Applicant: Zinaida Dmitriyevna Kunitsyna; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
13 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment After Full Merits Hearing
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Right to Reputation, Journalistic Duties, Balancing of Rights
Human Rights Law Media Law Civil Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Right to Reputation Journalistic Duties Balancing of Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zinaida Dmitriyevna Kunitsyna

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights / Judgment After Full Merits Hearing

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.
  2. 2 Whether the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.

Ratio Decidendi

The domestic courts failed to distinguish between value judgments and factual statements, did not establish an objective link between the statements and the claimants, and did not provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression. The interference was not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 10.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found.

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 330 in respect of pecuniary damage.
  • Respondent State to pay applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses.