Week-ending 11 September 2020
Two cases:
CASE OF TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA, 8 September 2020;
CASE OF OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA, 8 September 2020
CASE OF OOO REGNUM v. RUSSIA, 8 September 2020
Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Electronic news media convicted of defamation against a commercial company after reporting on mercury poisoning from distributed soft drink • Internet and the protection of business reputation • Difference between the reputational interests of a legal entity and the reputation of an individual • News items on consumer protection of considerable public interest • Failure of the domestic court to see the defamation dispute in the context of the general interest in receiving reports on the discovery of a potential health hazard • Short and purely informational news items • No discussion on consequences of the publication on the commercial company • News items passing on the authorities’ message on a public health issue • Web publication in full compliance with the tenets of responsible journalism • Interest and duty of the media in reporting on potential health hazards, and obligations of the domestic courts to demonstrate convincingly the existence of a pressing social need capable of justifying an interference with freedom of the media • Award of damages for defamation to bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered • Sizeable award of damages having a “chilling effect” • Absence of fair balance between the electronic media outlet’s right to freedom of expression and the commercial company’s right to reputation
Judgment
A violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
Compensation awarded of EUR 26,996, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 10,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
CASE OF TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA, 8 September 2020
Art 34 • Locus standi • Shareholders admitted to pursue proceedings instead of dissolved applicant company
Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Failure to apply relevant Convention standards • Civil defamation awards largely beyond applicant’s financial resources, leading to seizure of household items • Relevant yet insufficient grounds given • Disproportionate interference
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Public hearing • Civil defamation case heard in camera without reason
Judgment
A violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Compensation awarded of EUR 1,542, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage, to Mr Timakov; and EUR 9,750, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to Mr Timakov as regards applications nos. 46232/10 and 74770/10, as well as EUR 2,925 to Mr Leonov as regards application no. 46232/10 and his claim made on behalf of the applicant company; EUR 5,410, plus any tax that may be chargeable to Mr Timakov, in respect of costs and expenses.
