Communicated on 22 November 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 35034/13 NOVAYA GAZETA and others against Russia lodged on 18 September 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns three sets of defamation proceedings brought by the Administrative Directorate of the President of Russia (“ Управление делами Президента РФ ”) and, as regards the third applicant, by its head, Mr K., following publication in a national newspaper published by the applicant company of three articles penned by the second, third and fourth applicants, respectively. The second applicant ’ s article covered the alleged misuse of public funds in the course of public works and was based on financial documents; it put questions to the reader regarding the role of the Administrative Directorate in the works in question. The third applicant ’ s article reported on considerable discrepancies between the official salaries of the Administrative Directorate ’ s staff as described by Mr K. in the interview to a third newspaper and the data on the staff ’ s annual income available on the Administrative Directorate ’ s website; it also contained a phrase which in the journalist ’ s assertion was her value judgment regarding Mr K. ’ s interview. The article by the fourth applicant referred to the contracts concluded between the Administrative Directorate and some shell companies (“ фирмы ‑ однодневки ”) that had been allegedly involved in unlawful activities; it was based on the information obtained from the official register of State contracts. The three sets of claims were examined by the same courts; the appeal judgments were delivered on the same date. The domestic courts found for the claimant(s) stating that the articles had tarnished their reputation. They dismissed the applicants ’ references to the evidence in support of the impugned statements of fact and rejected their assertions that certain impugned phrases had not concerned the Administrative Directorate at all or had been value judgments. In the proceedings against the applicant company and the second and fourth applicants, respectively, the domestic courts ordered a retraction of the impugned statements. In the proceedings against the applicant company and the third applicant, the courts ordered a retraction and awarded Mr K. non ‑ pecuniary damages in the amounts of 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to be paid by the applicant ’ s company and RUB 10,000 to be paid by the third applicant. The applicants unsuccessfully lodged cassation appeals at two levels of jurisdiction.

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 of the defamation proceedings brought by the Administrative Directorate of the President of Russia (and, where relevant, by its head, Mr K.)? In particular, did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the alleged interference with the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression? 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 before t he Court by Mr Ya . Kozheurov , a lawyer practicing in Moscow.