Communicated on 15 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 56439/14 Nikita Yevgenyevich GIRIN and NOVAYA GAZETA against Russia lodged on 23 July 2014

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns civil defamation proceedings brought by Mr B. and Mr G. following publication in a national newspaper published by the applicant company of an article penned by the first applicant. At the material time Mr G. was a judge of the Moscow City Court; Mr B. - a former judge of the same court and Mr G. ’ s doctoral thesis advisor. The article reported on alleged plagiarism in Mr G. ’ s doctoral thesis, namely, extensive unattributed borrowings from Mr B. ’ s thesis for higher doctorate that had been identified by Dissernet , an Internet community running an anti ‑ plagiarism campaign. Prior to publication, the first applicant had unsuccessfully requested comment from Mr G. The article contained comments on the matter by the presiding judge of the Moscow City Court. The claimants considered that the article tarnished their reputation and sought a retraction and non ‑ pecuniary damages. The applicants pleaded before the courts that the value judgments contained in the article had had sufficient factual basis. The domestic courts found for the claimants, ordered a retraction and awarded non-pecuniary damages in the amounts of 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to be paid by the applicant company and RUB 50,000 to be paid by the first applicant to each claimant, respectively.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention on account the domestic courts ’ decisions in the defamation proceedings against them? Was the alleged interference proportionate, that is, in pursuance of one or more legitimate aims and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 10 § 2? D id the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants ’ right? Did they apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they base themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia , no. 39748/05, § 46, 25 April 2017, and Terentyev v. Russia , no. 25147/09, § 24, 26 January 2017)?

APPENDIX

The applicants are represented by Mr Ya . Kozheurov , a lawyer practicing in Moscow.