Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Салиев (Saliyev) против России» [англ.]

arginal importance and the newspaper existed thanks to the municipality's funding. Moreover, the municipality had the right to shape the newspaper's editorial policy, at least regarding "strategic" issues (see paragraphs 28 et seq. above).
67. Therefore, the independence of the newspaper was severely limited by the existence of strong institutional and economic links with the municipality and by the constraints attached to the use of its assets and property. Mr Svistunov had a dual role in this set-up: on the one hand he was a professional journalist, with his own ideas and opinions. On the other hand he was required by virtue of his status to ensure the loyalty of his newspaper to the municipality and its policy line.
68. The Court notes that no municipal or other State authority or official ever expressed dissatisfaction with the applicant's article or requested its withdrawal. It appears that the decision of the editor-in-chief to withdraw the newspapers was in fact dictated by his own perception of the situation and his fear of the "negative consequences" which publication of the article might entail. That fear was not specific; it did not relate to any pending (or imminent) legal proceedings or any rule prohibiting such publication in unequivocal terms. Given the overall context of the case, and the dual role played by the editor-in-chief, his decision to withdraw the newspapers can be characterised as an act of policy-driven censorship. The Court concludes that in the circumstances the editor-in-chief implemented the general policy line of the municipality and acted as its agent.
(c) Whether Magadan municipality was a "State authority"
69. The next question to answer is whether an act by a municipal institution can entail the responsibility of the State under the Convention. The Government argued that Magadan municipality was not a "State authority" within the Convention meaning. However, the Court is not convinced by that argument. Firstly, in a number of cases the Court has regarded the debts of municipal enterprises as State debts (see, for example, Gizzatova v. Russia, No. 5124/03, 13 January 2005). In a very recent case, also concerning State responsibility for the debts of a municipal enterprise, the Court held that local (that is, municipal) authorities were linked to the State administration (see Yershova v. Russia, No. 1387/04, §§ 54 et seq., 8 April 2010). The Court's reasoning in Yershova clearly implied that it did not regard municipalities as not being part of the State authorities in the broad sense, even if in domestic terms municipal authorities were independent from regional and federal government. In Russian law municipal authorities are treated on the same footing as federal or regional bodies for many purposes (see, for example, the full text of Article 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation concerning strict liability of State bodies for certain types of civil wrongs, quoted in Matveyev v. Russia, No. 26601/02, § 30, 3 July 2008; see also the analysis of the word "State body" employed in section 57 (4) of the Media Act in Romanenko and Others v. Russia, No. 11751/03, § 45, 8 October 2009). The municipal bodies are formed by the local population; they have wide-ranging powers in various areas of life, examples of which can be found in the Court's caselaw concerning Russia (see, for example, Kimlya and Others v. Russia, Nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, § 53, ECHR 2009-...; Kuimov v. Russia, No. 32147/04, § 30, 8 January 2009; and Kukalo v. Russia, No. 63995/00, § 33, 3 November 2005). Even if their competence is limited (see, mutatis mutandis, Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), No. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I, where the Court analysed whether municipal bodies had "legislative power" within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention), their powers cannot be characterised as anything other than "public". Therefore, Magadan municip

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16 ... 17