Communicated on 13 November 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 11971/10 NOVAYA GAZETA and Vyacheslav Yakovlevich IZMAYLOV against Russia lodged on 27 January 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the civil defamation proceedings brought by the President of the Chechen Republic, Mr K., following the publication in a national newspaper published by the applicant company of two articles penned by the second applicant. The articles covered a story regarding an alleged kidnapping in the Chechen Republic of a Mr P., purportedly a friend of Mr K. ’ s father. The first article stated that Mr K. had not commented on the alleged kidnapping. The second article read that Mr P. had allegedly no longer supported Mr K. Otherwise the articles did not mention Mr K. and focused on Mr P. ’ s story. Before the domestic courts, Mr K. submitted that the articles had been published “to demonstrate that an atmosphere of total lawlessness and lack of respect to people exists in the Chechen Republic headed by the claimant, which is not true”. The applicants pleaded that the articles contained no statements whatsoever, tarnishing or otherwise, regarding Mr K. The domestic courts found for the claimant for the reason that the articles contained information concerning kidnappings and the atmosphere of lawlessness in the Chechen Republic and “accordingly, de facto approval” of such events and climate by its President, ordered a retraction and awarded the claimant 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 10,000 to be paid by the applicant company and the second applicant, respectively.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression on account of the defamation proceedings brought against them by Mr K.? In particular, did the impugned articles contain statements capable of making the ordinary reader feel that Mr K. was targeted by any criticism? Was there an objective link between the impugned statements and the person suing in defamation (see Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia , no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007)? 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