Communicated on 25 October 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 1750/11 Valeriy Nikolayevich SAMOYLOV against Russia lodged on 3 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Valeriy Nikolayevich Samoylov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1958 and lived, prior to his conviction, in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Breyeva , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 29 May 2007 the city prosecution office opened a criminal investigation into the activities of a group of former and acting law-enforcement officers and officials.

On 24 April 2008 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody pending investigation and trial (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia , no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).

On 23 July 2009 the prosecutor completed the investigation in respect of fifteen defendants, including the applicant, and transferred the case to the Moscow City Court.

On 5 August the City Court held a preliminary hearing and decided to dispense with the public hearing of the criminal case. In particular, the court noted as follows:

“[The court] will examine the present case in camera . The case-file contains information classified as state secrets and the disclosure of this information might have a serious adverse effect on the interests of the society and the state.”

On 24 May 2010 the jury delivered a guilty verdict in the applicant ’ s case.

On 9 June 2010 the City Court sentenced the applicant to nine years ’ imprisonment and a monetary fine in the amount of RUB 500,000.

On 16 November 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant ’ s conviction, in substance, on appeal.

B. Civil proceedings instituted by the applicant

On 10 September 2009 the major national TV channel broadcast a show concerning the circumstances of the criminal case against the applicant. The presenter of the show stated that the applicant, a former district prosecutor, lived on an unearned income and that the value of his assets significantly exceeded his revenues. He further mentioned that the applicant owned a 2 million United States dollars (USD) house. The footage featured (1) the applicant ’ s two-storeyed house and its interior, (2) the tax declarations of the applicant and the members of his family and (3) the applicant ’ s photograph in the prosecutor ’ s uniform.

On an unspecified date the applicant and his wife brought a civil action for damages against the TV channel arguing, inter alia , that the respondent company had failed to obtain their consent for the disclosure of their personal data, including the tax information, and the footage of their house and its interior.

On 18 May 2010 the Ostankinskiy District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claims in full.

On 20 December 2010 the City Court upheld the judgment of 18 May 2010 on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he did not have a public hearing in the criminal proceedings against him, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant alleges a violation of his rights set out in Article 8 of the Convention as regards the disclosure of his personal data in a TV show on 9 September 2009.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Gautrin and Others v. France , judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, § 42; and Pretto and Others v. Italy , judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, § 21; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 87; and Krestovskiy v. Russia , no. 14040/03, §§ 24-36, 28 October 2010)?

2. As regards the broadcasting of a TV show on 10 September 2009, has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life and home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (compare, Samoylova v. Russia , no. 49108/11, communicated on 13 May 2015)?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?