Communicated on 13 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 69575/10 Valeriy Fedorovich RASHKIN against Russia lodged on 11 November 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Valeriy Fedorovich Rashkin , is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Serdyukov , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

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

At the material time the applicant was a member of an opposition Communist Party and a member of the lower house of the Russian parliament (“State Duma”). On 7 November 2009 he held a public speech at a political event in Saratov, making the following statement:

“We can find at least six crimes against the people, against the Russian nation, that were committed by these authorities, starting from Yeltsin and his camarilla and ending with Putin and Medvedev... all these crimes weigh heavily on the authorities that carried out the coup in 1991, on the Yeltsins , Volodins , Sliskas , Medvedevs, and Putins . Their crimes can only be washed away with blood. With blood they should wash away the disgrace they dragged us into.”

Mr Volodin , one of the heads of the ruling United Russia Party and a member of the parliament, lodged a defamation claim against the applicant. On 7 April 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Saratov granted the claim, finding as follows:

“The court considers that in his speech Mr Rashkin made a factual statement that Mr Volodin had committed crimes against the people and the nation, and the speech referred exactly to the plaintiff. The court has arrived at this conclusion on the following grounds.

Mr Volodin is well-known in Saratov because he is an MP representing the Saratov Region... Despite the fact that the defendant used the last name of the plaintiff in the plural form, the court agrees with the [plaintiff ’ s] representative Ms Savina that Mr Rashkin used the method of “incomplete naming of the person referred to”... The last name was used in the plural form, and the first name and patronymic were not mentioned. However, a considerable number of citizens and voters will realise that the statement refers to Mr Volodin , who represents the Saratov Region in State bodies.

...

The court considers that Mr Rashkin ’ s speech... contained factual statements suggesting that Mr Volodin had breached the criminal law and describing the plaintiff negatively ... Moreover, the factual statements are untrue, given that the plaintiff did not participate in 1991 events as he was teaching at the university at the time and was a member of the local parliament...

...the statements should be declared untrue and prejudicial to the honour, dignity and business reputation of the plaintiff...

...

The plaintiff represents the voters of the Saratov Region in the State bodies and heads the United Russia Party... and holds senior posts, including those of vice-speaker and deputy chairman of the State Duma, which makes the damage to his business reputation, honour and dignity substantial.”

The District Court ordered the applicant to pay Mr Volodin 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

On 19 May 2010 the Saratov Regional Court rejected an appeal from the applicant and endorsed the findings of the District Court.

On 14 July 2010 a judge of the Regional Court refused leave to appeal to the supervisory review instance.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that there has been a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention (see, among others, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) , 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, § 59; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 266 82/95, § 61, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV; Reznik v. Russia , no. 4977/05 , § 45, 4 April 2013; and Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia , no. 25968/02, § 44, 31 July 2007)?

2. Was the penalty imposed on the applicant excessive (see, for example, Tešić v. Serbia , nos. 4678/07 and 50591/12 , §§ 65-68, 11 February 2014, and Aurelian Oprea v. Romania , no. 12138/08 , §§ 77-78, 19 January 2016)?