Communicated on 31 January 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 16116/13 Vladimir Vladimirovich KAZAKOV against Russia lodged on 25 February 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Kazakov , is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Tomsk. He is represented before the Court by Mr A.V. Plokhikh , a lawyer practising in Tomsk.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. On 26 April 2012 the applicant, then a member of the Tomsk Regional Legislative Duma ( Законодательная Дума Томской области ), used the following phrase in a speech at a session of the Duma: “I would remind you that the roads that you and K. have built are alone worth five criminal cases” (“ Я хочу Вам напомнить , что Вы только одних дорог с К . настроили на пять уголовных дел ” ).

4. The words were addressed to the President of the Duma while the second person mentioned was Mr K., a former governor of Tomsk Region ( Губернатор Томской области ). At the time of the events at issue, K. was a candidate to be a representative of the Tomsk Regional Administration to the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

5. Mr K. sued the applicant for defamation. On 24 July 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court of Tomsk found that the impugned phrase was a value judgment conveying the applicant ’ s opinion on Mr K. ’ s activities as governor of Tomsk Region and had therefore raised an issue of public concern. With reference to the Court ’ s case-law, the court further noted that “information” or “ideas” that offend, shock or disturb were not excluded from the scope of the right to freedom of expression, and that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider when it came to politicians than as regards private individuals. Lastly, the court concluded that the applicant had not overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism and dismissed Mr K. ’ s claim.

6. Mr K. appealed and his appeal was granted by the Tomsk Regional Court on 2 October 2012. The appeal court disagreed with the first-instance court ’ s finding that the impugned statement had been a value judgment, finding that it had contained factual information and had been expressed as a statement rather than as a conjecture. It further held that the applicant had not adduced any evidence proving his statement to be true. Lastly, the appeal court relied on the Court ’ s case-law, noting that civil servants must enjoy public confidence in conditions that are free of undue perturbation if they are to be successful in performing their tasks and that it may therefore prove necessary to protect them from offensive and abusive verbal attacks when performing their duties. It therefore concluded that the applicant had overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism since his statement had discredited Mr K. as a public servant and politician. It ordered the applicant to retract his statement at the next session of the Duma and to pay damages to Mr K. of 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 644 euros (EUR)).

7. On 11 January 2013 the Tomsk Regional Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Civil Code of the Russian Federation

8. Article 152 of the Civil Code provides that an individual may apply to a court for a rectification of statements ( сведения ) that are damaging to his or her honour , dignity or professional reputation if the person who disseminated such statements does not prove them to be true. The aggrieved person may also claim compensation for losses and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the dissemination of such statements.

9. Article 1100 provides that compensation for non-pecuniary damage is payable irrespective of fault if the damage was sustained through the dissemination of information damaging to someone ’ s dignity, honour or reputation.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to freedom of expression was breached.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, in particular the right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?

2. Was the characterisation of the applicant ’ s utterances as statements of fact, rather than value judgments, justified ( Lingens v. Austria , 8 July 1986, § 46, Series A no. 103 )?

3. D id the domestic courts strike a fair balance between the interests of the individual concerned and the public interest in the freedom of elected representatives of the people to impart information on matters of legitimate concern (see Castells v. Spain , 23 April 1992, § 42, Series A no. 236).?