Communicated on 24 October 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no 30084/11 Andrey Borisovich STOLBUNOV and MOO SPRAVEDLIVOST against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Application no. 30084/11, Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost v. Russia

(a) Defamation proceedings and non-execution of judgments

3 . On 24 July 2008 and 8 June 2009 MOO Spravedlivost, a non ‑ governmental organisation, and Mr Stolbunov, chairman of the MOO Spravedlivost ’ s board, published two articles on their web site, www.s ‑ pravdoy.ru, under the headlines “MOO Spravedlivost assists in the fight against an illegal takeover and theft from the shareholders of OAO Opytnyy Zavod Stroydormash, Khimki, Moscow Region” and “Misappropriation of OOO Divareks ’ s property”. The publications concerned Mr M., Mr K., Ms V. and Mrs M. ’ s involvement in illegal takeovers.

(i) Proceedings relating to OAO “Opytnyy Zavod Stroydormash” and non ‑ execution of judgments of 13, 18 and 19 November 2008)

4 . On 13, 18 and 19 November 2008 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow allowed defamation claims by Mr M., Mr K., Ms V. and Mrs M. against the MOO Spravedlivost and ordered it to post a statement on its web site that information contained in the Internet publication “MOO Spravedlivost assists in the fight against an illegal takeover and theft from the shareholders of OAO Opytnyy Zavod Stroydormash, Khimki, Moscow Region”, was untrue. In particular, the court referred to statements that: (1) the shareholders had been aware that Mr M., the first deputy prosecutor for the Moscow Region, and Mr K., the minister of transport for the Moscow Region, had organised the takeover; (2) Mr M. had prevented the shareholders from initiating criminal proceedings against the persons engaged in the takeover; and (3) the lawyers Ms V. and Mrs M. had provided legal support for the takeover, had been directly involved in falsification of the shareholder register and takeover documents, creating parallel management bodies and property transfer schemes and destroying evidence showing that the transaction was illegal.

5 . On 21 April 2009 the applicants published retractions on a web page. They stated that the judgments of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow had obliged them to publish retractions. They then posted the text of three retractions under the headline “Retraction”. They stated that they had disseminated untrue information in the 24 July 2008 article and repeated the operative part of the judgments verbatim.

6 . On 6 October 2009 the bailiff of the Tverskoy District of Moscow initiated execution proceedings against Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost, informing them that their retractions did not comply with section 44 of the Mass Media Act and that they could be held criminally and administratively liable for failure to execute the judgments. He did not provide any clear instructions but only cited the Mass Media Act ’ s provisions on retractions.

7 . On 9 March 2010 the bailiff informed MOO Spravedlivost that the judgment had not been executed and ordered it to pay 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (125 euros (EUR)) for judgments that had not been executed.

8 . On 24 March 2010 Mr Stolbunov p ublished retractions on his web ‑ site under the heading “Investigation news” in the section “Takeover of the OAO ‘ Opytnyy zavod Stroydormash ’ ”. He alleges that when he met the bailiff in person at the bailiff service, the bailiff asked him to publish the retraction together with the article “MOO Spravedlivost assists in the fight against an illegal takeover and theft from the shareholders of OAO ’ Opytnyy Zavod Stroydormash ’ , Khimki, Moscow Region”.

9 . On 1 April and 22 June 2010 the applicants published retractions according to bailiff ’ s instructions and asked him to discontinue execution proceedings.

10 . On 25 April 2011 Mr Stolbunov asked the bailiff to inform him whether the retractions were correct and, if not, provide the relevant instructions. No reply followed.

11 . On 7, 29 September and 12 October 2011 the applicants published new retractions on separate web pages under the headline “Retraction”. They stated that: (1) on 24 July 2008 they had posted an article on MOO Spravedlivost ’ s website headlined “MOO Spravedlivost assists in the fight against an illegal takeover and theft from the shareholders of OAO ’ Opytnyy Zavod Stroydormash ’ , Khimki, Moscow Region”; (2) the article had concerned Mr K., Mr M., Mrs M. and Ms V., who had considered that the information published by the applicants had been defamatory and had initiated defamation proceedings, asking the court to hold that the information contained in the article was untrue; (3) the Tverskoy District Court had on the relevant dates allowed their claims. The applicants further cited the passages with defamatory information, as set out in the operative part of the judgments.

12 . On 20 October and 24 November 2011 the bailiff discontinued the execution proceedings.

(ii) Defamation proceedings relating to OOO Divareks and non-execution of judgment of 1 March 2010

13 . By decision of 1 March 2010, as upheld on appeal and cassation appeal on 7 July 2010 and 26 November 2010 and by the Supreme Court of Russia on 25 March 2011, the Commercial Court of the Moscow Region allowed a claim by Mr K., Mrs M., Mr A., Ms V. and OOO ElitTransGroup against Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost and ordered them to post a retraction of defamatory allegations contained in an article headlined “Misappropriation of OOO Divareks ’ s property” and the text of the judgment on MOO Spravedlivost ’ s website. The court held that the following passages were defamatory:

“Since spring 2007 a group of persons connected to Mr. K., the Deputy Head of the Government and Minister of Transport for the Moscow Region, have been trying to misappropriate OOO Divareks ’ land plot ... The following persons belong to this group: Mr. A, Ms V., Mrs M. ...

OOO ElitTransGroup, controlled by the raiders, is also involved in fraud in respect of OOO Divareks ...

Raiders falsified documents to lend legitimacy to their claims before the court ...

In 2007 the OOO ElitTransGroup ’ s representatives ... who had developed ‘ profitable connections ’ with the judges, managed to seize OOO Divareks ’ land plot and a share in its charter capital ...

Evidence suggests that Mr K. ... has provided significant support to the raiders ...

The attempts to misappropriate OOO Divareks ’ property by the A. ’ s group were revealed and proven during the first stages of the investigation. However raiders blocked the investigation ...

However ... the investigator M. did not analysed the actions of A., V., M. and other persons trying to misappropriate shares in OOO Divareks ’ charter capital and its land plot ...

There is no doubt that the transfer of criminal case in breach of jurisdiction rules ... was the result of OOO ElitTransGroup ’ s collusion with the corrupted policemen ...

It shall be noted that during the investigation the raiders tried to legalize their claims before the Commercial Court of the Moscow Region.”

14 . The court held that the applicants had not proved that their allegations in respect of Mr K., Mrs M., Mr A., Ms V. and OOO ElitTransGroup were true, ordered to publish retraction and pay RUB 2,000 (EUR 49) in legal expenses. The court did not award any compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

15 . On 15 July 2010 Mr Stolbunov published a retraction on MOO Spravedlivost ’ s website. In particular, he posted the judgment of 1 March 2010 in jpeg format and an editorial article. The retraction read as follows:

“Editorial article. Retraction.

By virtue of the judgment of the Commercial Court of the Moscow Region issued on 1 March 2010 we herein publish this judgment unchanged for the avoidance of technical errors.”

16 . On 28 January 2011 the bailiff of the Tverskoy District of Moscow initiated execution proceedings against Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost and informed them of their possible criminal and administrative liability for their failure to execute the judgment.

17 . On 30 March 2011 the bailiff informed Mr Stolbunov that the judgment had not been executed and ordered him to pay an execution fee of RUB 5,000 (EUR 125).

18 . On 15 June 2011 the bailiff informed the applicant that the retraction was not in line with Section 44 of the Mass Media Act and cited its provisions.

19 . On 1 July 2011 Mr Stolbunov posted a retraction together with the article “Misappropriation of OOO Divareks ’ s property” and the text of the judgment in word format.

20 . On 14 July 2011 and 17 October 2012 the bailiff informed Mr Stolbunov that he had failed to execute the judgment of 1 March 2010 and could be subject to criminal liability for persistent non-execution under Article 315 of the Criminal Code of Russia.

21 . On 14 November 2012 Mr Stolbunov met the bailiff who instructed him to publish a retraction on the same web page as the article. Mr Stolbunov followed the instructions and informed the bailiff of the new retraction. It seems that no reaction followed.

(iii) Criminal proceedings for failure to execute the judgments

22 . On 7 October 2011 and 23 November 2012 criminal proceedings were initiated against Mr Stolbunov. He was charged with persistent non ‑ execution of judgments issued on 13, 18 and 19 November 2008 and on 1 March 2010 under Article 315 of the Criminal Code.

23 . On 13 August 2013 the Justice of the Peace of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found him guilty of the charges and fined him RUB 800,000 (EUR 18,259). The court held that section 44 of the Mass Media Act should apply to retractions posted on the Internet. It stated that the bailiff had ordered Mr Stolbunov to comply with the provisions of the Mass Media Act but he had ignored them.

24 . On 19 November 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow held that the statutory limitation had expired with regard to the periods of non ‑ execution between 27 April 2009 and 29 September 2011, 27 April 2009 and 7 September 2011, 27 April 2009 and 7 October 2011 and reduced the fine to RUB 200,000 (EUR 4,565).

(b) Complaints to State authorities

(i) Complaints to the Federal Financial Monitoring Service of Russia

25 . On 2 October 2008 and 1 July 2009 Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost submitted complaints to the Federal Financial Monitoring Service of Russia (Rosfinmonitoring), which read as follows:

“... according to documents received from interested parties, a group of State officials in Moscow Region misappropriate private property by misusing their powers and administrative resources, i.e. acting as so-called ‘ raiders ’ .

The facts indicate that Mr K. is involved in the activities of this group ...

In particular, his wife and he own huge and expensive parcels of real estate. We believe that they could not have bought that property with their salaries because Mr K. and his wife have worked in organisations which are financed from the State budget ...

The facts revealed during [our] investigation at the request of victims of illegal actions committed by Mr K. ..., his relatives, subordinates and other persons close to him, point to widespread corruption, including money laundering via foreign banks and companies ...”

26 . They also stated that their information showed that, subject to further verification, Mr. K ’ s family had laundered money via March Investment, an international company. Some of the evidence suggested that they had used State budget funds for the transactions. They asked Rosfinmonitoring to conduct an inspection in respect of Mr K.

27 . Mr K. initiated defamation proceedings, stating that Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost had disseminated untrue information about him, which had undermined his reputation.

28 . By a decision of 4 February 2013, upheld on appeal on 24 June 2013, the Korolev Town Court of the Moscow Region allowed Mr K. ’ s claim. It stated that the applicants had failed properly to verify the information provided in their submissions to Rosfinmonitoring and had to issue a retraction. The court awarded Mr K. RUB 500,000 (EUR 12,341) and costs and expenses of RUB 3,003 (EUR 74).

(ii) Complaint submitted to the Presidential Administration

29 . On 14 November 2008 Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost submitted a petition to Russia ’ s Presidential Administration, which read as follows:

“MOO Spravedlivost has received numerous complaints that Mr K., ..., is the leader of an organised criminal group misappropriating budget funds and taking over business and real estate belonging to the State or private persons. The criminal group organised by Mr K. comprises his relatives, friends, trusted persons from his inner circle and his subordinates (see annex 1).

We have repeatedly informed law-enforcement bodies about the frauds and corruption committed by this criminal group. However, the police ignore our complaints and the reports of victims who have been shocked by the outrageous behaviour of its members ...

... due to the above facts, we kindly ask you to monitor the inspections carried out with regard to these incidents and take action under the law to stop Mr K. ’ s activities, which discredit the State service and prevent the implementation of the anti ‑ corruption programme of the Russian President.”

30 . They also provided a list of the allegedly unlawful transactions in which Mr K. had been involved.

31 . Mr K. initiated defamation proceedings against Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost.

32 . By decision of 24 October 2012, upheld on appeal on 26 August 2013, the Korolev Town Court of the Moscow Region allowed his claim and ordered Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost to issue a retraction and pay Mr K. RUB 1,000,000 (EUR 24,615) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and RUB 203,030 (EUR 4,998) in costs and expenses. The court analysed the contents of the petition and held that the applicants had failed to submit sufficient evidence for their allegations.

(iii) Complaint submitted to United Russia

33 . On 26 March 2009 MOO Spravedlivost submitted a complaint to the head of the United Russia, the ruling political party, about the illegal activities of Mr K., the Minister of Transport for the Moscow Region, who was also a member of United Russia. The complaint contained the following remarks:

“There is abundant evidence that Mr K. and his subordinates ... misappropriate budget funds and use State property in their own interests, abusing their powers and acting against society and the State. Dozens of firms affiliated with Mr K. ’ s family, including some registered abroad, exercise control over the sphere of public transport in the Moscow Region ... Mr K. and persons close to him ‘ specialise ’ in hostile takeovers of large amounts of real estate belonging to private persons and the State. Acts of tax evasion in Russia and the laundering of funds received abroad have also been revealed ... However, law-enforcement bodies ignore the reports of these crimes for no logical reason.

The most spectacular example of corruption is discontinuing the criminal proceedings ... relating to the misappropriation of the OAO ‘ Opytnyy zavod Stroydormash ’ (Khimki) plant ...

The investigation established, on the basis of sufficient evidence, that Mr K., his subordinates from the various departments of the Ministry of Transport of the Moscow Region, his relatives and other persons close to him, have engaged in fraud ...

It is obvious that a high-ranking official of the Moscow Region Government enjoys some privileges, but it is unlikely that any decent person could become a dollar billionaire overnight ...

The Interregional Non-Governmental Organisation ‘ Spravedlivost ’ has been investigating the complaints of those who have suffered because of Mr K. ’ s illegal activities ...

Bearing in mind the above abuses by Mr K., a member of United Russia, we kindly ask you to terminate his membership of the party ... ”

34 . Mr K. initiated defamation proceedings against the applicants.

35 . By a decision of 6 February 2013, upheld on appeal on 31 July 2013, the Korolev Town Court allowed his claim and ordered to pay Mr K. RUB 1,000,000 (EUR 24,624) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and RUB 3,730 ( EUR 92) in costs and expenses, resubmit the complaint and issue retraction. The court held that the applicants had already submitted numerous complaints about Mr K. to various State authorities. By making a new complaint the applicants had abused their right to report violations to the State authorities and had damaged Mr K. ’ s reputation.

(iv) Defamation proceedings relating to the publication of an open letter to the Governor of the Moscow Region

36 . On 27 August 2008 Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost published an “Open letter from A.B. Stolbunov to B.V. Gromov, the Governor of the Moscow Region” on their website, www.s-pravdoy.ru . The letter read as follows:

“[MOO Spravedlivost ’ s] investigation has established facts indicating that Mr K. and Mr M., State officials, engage in illegal activities ... The OAO ‘ Opytnyy zavod Stroydormash ’ plant is not the only victim of a hostile takeover in the Moscow Region by a criminal group with the participation of the above officials. Another one is the farmers ’ enterprise ‘ Selskokhozyastvennaya artel kolhoz im. Lenina ’ , in the town of Lytkarino, where the raiders misappropriated plots of land belonging to more than eight hundred employees. Moreover, Ms V. and Mrs M., their so-called business partners, provided legal support for both of those transactions. They boast about their contacts in the regional administration and state that they can resolve any issue arising in interactions between private persons, courts and law-enforcement authorities ... We are convinced that officials who discredit the State authorities and the Government of the Moscow Region will sooner or later be brought to justice”.

37 . Mr K., Mr M., Ms V. and Mrs M. initiated defamation proceedings against the applicants.

38 . On 7 December 2012 the Korolev Town Court allowed their claims. It held that Mr Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost had disseminated defamatory information and had failed to provide the appropriate evidence to confirm the claimants ’ involvement in takeovers. The court further ordered them to pay damages of RUB 1,000,000 (EUR 24,868) to each claimant, RUB 13,173 (EUR 328) in costs and expenses, to submit a new letter to the Governor of Moscow Region, to delete the open letter from the website and to issue a retraction. On 22 May 2013 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the decision in respect of Mr Stolbunov, held that the defamatory statements had been disseminated only by MOO Spravedlivost and reduced compensation to RUB 500,000 (EUR 12,432) to each claimant.

2. Application no. 78618/13, Moseyev v. Russia

39 . On 31 March 2012 the North of Russia Analytical Centre “Echo of the North” (Информационно-аналитическое агентство русского Севера “Эхо Севера”) posted an article on its website ( www.echosevera.ru ) with the headline “Pomoreye in the Eurasian world” dedicated to the large region Pomoreye on Russian territory, the south board of the White Sea, and its inhabitants, the Pomors ( поморы ) . Any visitor to the website could comment on the article.

40 . On 1 April 2012 a visitor posted the following comment:

“Pomors! Give it a rest. There are one million Russians and only two thousand Pomors in Arkhangelsk Region. How can you, Pomors, Ugrofins ( угрофины ) , believe that you are ‘ the spiritual and cultural pivot ’ of the Arkhangelsk Region? The author of the article and his friends suffer from megalomania. The word ‘ Pomor ’ will soon become a vulgarity. We will not let the Pomor leaders exclude this Region from Russian civilisation.”

41 . Mr Moseyev replied as follows:

“What will you do to us? There are millions of you, sheeple ( быдло ) , and two thousands of us, people.”

42 . On 15 June 2012 an investigator initiated criminal proceedings against Mr Moseyev under Article 282 § 1 of the Criminal Code for posting an extremist publication on the Internet.

43 . On 16 October 2012 Mr Moseyev was charged with incitement to hatred or enmity and degrading treatment on the ground of nationality.

44 . On 1 March 2013 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk found the applicant guilty of the charges and fined him RUB 100,000 (EUR 2,497). The court based its decision on an expert opinion, which stated that Mr Moseyev had compared the Russian ethnic group with animals and had used negative, disrespectful, degrading and abusive words.

45 . On 24 May 2013 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 1 March 2013 on appeal.

3. Application no. 76022/14, Nemchinov v. Russia

46 . Mr Nemchinov owned and ran a rating service, www.black-agent.ru , which let online visitors post opinions about estate agents and landlords. Sometime in 2011-2012 an unidentified person posted the following statement about a certain Ms K.:

“Attention! Imminent fraud! [Ms K.], telephone number ... She introduces herself as an employee of the Miel real estate agency. She asks for a down payment on a flat and then fails to close the sale and refuses to pay the down payment back. She often changes telephone numbers. ... She presents herself as an expert, but in fact she embodies incompetency in its ultimate form and gives an unprofessional performance. She is a cynic and a haggler. ... She misleads all the parties to a sale and shifts responsibility onto their shoulders ...”

47 . Ms K. asked the applicant several times to delete the comment but he ignored her requests. She was dismissed from her position in the real estate agency, allegedly because of the above comment. On 1 April 2013 she sued Mr Nemchinov for defamation.

48 . On 23 August 2013 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed her claim, holding that the abusive information had not been posted by the applicant.

49 . By a decision of 2 December 2013, upheld by cassation appeal courts on 25 April and 21 July 2014, the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment and allowed the claim. It stated that Mr Nemchinov had known about defamatory information on his website but had failed to take it down, despite Ms K. ’ s requests. It further held that the information posted on the website was degrading and untrue as the applicant had failed to provide any evidence confirming the allegations. It awarded Ms K. RUB 20,200 (EUR 448).

B . Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Freedom of expression, defamation and petitions to State authorities

50 . Article 29 of the Russian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression. Article 33 provides that Russian citizens have the right to petition in person and to submit individual and collective appeals to State authorities and municipal bodies.

51 . According to Article 152 of the Civil Code of Russia, citizens have the right to claim in court that information discrediting their honour, dignity or business reputation be retracted, unless the person who has disseminated such information proves it to be true. A citizen who is the subject of information which has been disseminated and which discredits his or her honour, dignity or business reputation has the right to a retraction and to claim compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

52 . In Ruling no. 3 of 24 February 2005, the Plenary Supreme Court noted that Article 29 § 3 of the Constitution provided that no one could be compelled to express an opinion or belief or compelled to refrain from expressing them. The Supreme Court also instructed the country ’ s courts that the fact that a person lodges a complaint with a public authority alleging, for instance, that a criminal offence has been committed but the allegation proves to be unfounded, cannot serve as a basis for an action under Article 152 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court explained that civil liability could not arise in a situation where an applicant was exercising the right of petition to a public authority, which had to carry out an inquiry. Such a situation did not equate to the dissemination of false defamatory information (point 10). A defamation action could only succeed if a court had established that the petition to the public authority lacked foundation and had been intended to cause damage to another person, thus amounting to an abuse of the right (ibid.).

53 . According to point 7 of the above Ruling and point 6 of Ruling no. 16 of 15 June 2010, a defamation claim relating to allegedly false information that has been posted on the Internet at a data source registered as a media outlet should be considered under the rules relating to the media. A person who had illegally disseminated information via websites which had not been registered as a media outlet should bear liability under other provisions of Russian law, not those on the media.

2. Retraction

54 . Section 44 of the Mass Media Act (Law no. 2124-I of 27 December 1991) provides that a retraction must state the information that is untrue, and when and how it was disseminated by the media outlet concerned.

55 . A retraction in a printed periodical publication must be typed in the same font as the article or material subject to retraction; the retraction has to be placed under the heading “Retraction” and, as a rule, it must be in the same place as the article or material subject to retraction.

56 . The size of the retraction must not be more than twice the size of the passage being retracted. A retraction cannot be less than one standard page of typed text.

57 . Article 152 of the Civil Code provides that a retraction shall be made using the same or similar means as when the untrue information was disseminated. If information discrediting the honour, dignity or business reputation of a person was disseminated in the media, it has to be retracted via the same media. If the defamatory information was posted on the Internet, the person can request that it be deleted and retracted in a manner which brings the retraction to the attention of Internet users. The procedure for retraction of defamatory information in cases not set out in that Article shall be established by a court.

3. Persistent non-execution of judgments

58 . Article 315 of the Criminal Code provides that non-execution of a judgment by an employee of a commercial or other organisation or obstructing execution is punishable by a fine of RUB 200,000; the salary or other income of a convicted person of eighteen months; disqualification for up to five years; public labour for up to 480 hours or compulsory labour at a correctional centre for up to two years; up to six months ’ arrest; or up to two years ’ imprisonment.

4. Incitement to hatred on the Internet

59 . Under Article 282 § 1 of the Criminal Code incitement to hatred or enmity and degrading treatment in respect of a person or group on the grounds of their sex, race, nationality, language, origin, religion or social status, in public or via the mass media, is punishable by a fine of between RUB 100,000 and RUB 300,000; a fine equal to a convicted person ’ s salary or other income for a period of one to two years; by disqualification from office for up to three years; public labour for up to 360 hours, or correctional labour at the convicted person ’ s place of work for up to one year; compulsory labour at a correctional centre for up to two years; or imprisonment for the same term.

60 . Section 12 of the Suppression of Extremism Act (Federal Law no. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002, as in force at the material time) prohibited the use of public connection networks for extremist activities.

5. Liability of a website owner for comments posted by a third person

61 . Section 17 § 3 (2) of the Federal Law of 27 July 2006 no. 149-FZ “On information, information technology and protection of information” stipulates that a person providing hosting services and access to information does not bear civil liability for the dissemination of information if he or she could not have known that its dissemination was unlawful.

62 . In Ruling no. 18-P of 9 July 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the Russian law in force did not contain any provisions on the liability of persons providing hosting services and access to information on websites which had not been registered as media outlets for violations committed by third persons using those websites. The mere fact that a violation had been committed by an unidentified person using a website did not undermine the general principle of imposing liability on offenders. Even if it was impossible to identify the offender or there were no legal grounds to bring the owner of such a website or other person authorised by him or her to host information to account, the victim ’ s rights could be protected by using other means such as restitutio in integrum and supressing the acts which had violated the victim ’ s rights or threatened him or her.

COMPLAINTS

63 . All the applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation by the Russian authorities of their right to freedom of expression.

QUESTIONS

Application no. 30084/11, Stolbunov and MOO Spravedlivost v. Russia

1. As regards Mr Stolbunov ’ s punishment for failure to publish retractions, was the interference with his freedom of expression prescribed by law? Does domestic law set out rules for the publication of retractions on the Internet? Are the provisions of Russian law on retractions foreseeable?

If so, was the interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? In particular, did the courts indicate “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the restriction of Mr Stolbunov ’ s right to freedom of expression? Taking into account the fact that he was found guilty of failing to publish retractions and fined RUB 200,000 (EUR 4,565), was the punishment proportionate to the legitimate aim?

2. As regards the applicants ’ complaint about defamation proceedings relating to OOO Divareks, was there a violation of their right to freedom of expression? In particular, was the interference with the applicants ’ freedom of expression necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Did the courts indicate “relevant and sufficient” reasons for the restriction of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression?

3. As regards the applicants ’ complaints to State authorities, was there a violation of their right to freedom of expression? Were the interferences prescribed by the domestic law? Given that the domestic courts found the applicants liable to pay substantial amounts of compensation and issue retractions of the statements contained in their complaints to State authorities, were the interferences with their freedom of expression proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the interests of others? (see LeÅ¡ník v. Slovakia , no. 35640/97, ECHR 2003 ‑ IV, and Kazakov v. Russia , no. 1758/02, 18 December 2008).

Application no. 78618/13, Moseyev v. Russia

Was there a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?

In particular, was the interference with his freedom of expression prescribed by law? Were the provisions of Article 282 § 1 of the Criminal Code on incitement to hatred (as in force at the material time) foreseeable and sufficiently precise? Did they cover the offences committed on the Internet?

Was the applicant ’ s conviction for posting an offensive comment on a website necessary in a democratic society? Were the reasons adduced by the domestic courts “relevant and sufficient” to justify the alleged interference? Did the courts draw their own conclusions from the linguistic study of the comment? Did they establish direct intent on the part of the applicant to incite hatred? Was the applicant ’ s punishment proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?

Application no. 76022/14, Nemchinov v. Russia

Was there a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?

Was the interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression prescribed by law? Are the provisions of Russian law on the liability of website owners for violations committed by website visitors foreseeable?

Given that the domestic courts found the applicant liable to pay RUB 20,200 (EUR 448) and to delete the information published by a visitor to his website, was the interference with his freedom of expression justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, were the reasons adduced by the domestic courts “relevant and sufficient” to justify the interference?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

30084/11

08/04/2011

Andrey Borisovich STOLBUNOV

28/10/1972

Cliffside Park, United States of America

MOO Spravedlivost

Moscow

Irina Vladimirovna GRUDINSKAYA

78618/13

20/11/2013

Ivan Ivanovich MOSEYEV

14/12/1965

Arkhangelsk

Damir Ravilevich GAYNUTDINOV

76022/14

27/11/2014

Sergey Nikolayevich NEMCHINOV

23/06/1974

Ploskoye, Kursk Region