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

ality was a "public authority" within the Convention meaning and the Court has competence ratione personae to examine its actions.
70. To sum up, the Court concludes that the withdrawal of copies of the newspaper containing the applicant's article constituted an interference by a public authority with his rights under Article 10 of the Convention. The Court will now examine whether that interference was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 10.

3. Whether the interference with the applicant's freedom
of expression was justified

71. The Court reiterates that in order to comply with Article 10, the interference in question must be "prescribed by law", pursue an aim that is legitimate under Article 10 § 2 and be "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve that aim.
(a) Lawfulness
72. As to the lawfulness of the interference in the instant case, the Court observes that the national law prohibits the "confiscation or destruction" of a print run without a court order (see paragraph 36 above). Apparently, the law deals only with situations where a print run is confiscated or destroyed by a third party - at least that is how it has been interpreted by the domestic courts. On the other hand, the law entitles editors-in-chief to decide on questions relating to the "distribution" of a newspaper. This provision can reasonably be interpreted as allowing a newspaper to withdraw a print run before it is sold without obtaining any authorisation (see paragraph 33 above). The Court is prepared to accept that under domestic law the editor-in-chief had a right to withdraw the copies even after the newspaper had been published.
(b) Legitimate aim
73. As to the "legitimate aim", the Court notes that the domestic courts did not examine why the copies had to be withdrawn and destroyed. However, from the material in the case file it appears that the withdrawal of the print was aimed, ultimately, at the "protection of the reputation or rights of others", namely the State officials and managers of Kolymaenergo Plc targeted by the article. The Court is thus prepared to accept that the aim pursued by the editor-in-chief was a "legitimate" one.
(c) Proportionality
74. The article under consideration criticised the manner in which the acquisition of shares in a large State-controlled energy company was organised, and the role of some public officials in it. The Court reiterates that "the management of State assets and the manner in which politicians fulfil their mandate" is by definition "a matter of public interest" (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], No. 28114/95, § 48, ECHR 1999-VI). Reporting on matters relating to the management of public resources lies at the core of the media's responsibility and the right of the public to receive information (see Busuioc v. Moldova, No. 61513/00, §§ 63 - 64 and 84, 21 December 2004, and {Cumpana} and {Mazare} v. Romania [GC], No. 33348/96, §§ 94 - 95, ECHR 2004-XI). In other words, the applicant's article belonged to a class of speech which attracts maximum protection under Article 10 of the Convention. At the same time, despite "the privileged protection afforded under the Convention to the kind of speech in issue", the applicant was required to act within the bounds set, inter alia, in the interest of the "protection of the reputation or rights of others" (see Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], No. 23118/93, § 47, ECHR 1999-VIII). What is in issue is whether the applicant exceeded the limits of permissible criticism.
75. In determining such questions the Court should first turn to the domestic decisions. The Court reiterates that, normally, it is not its task to take the place of the national authorities who ruled on the matter and to substitute its own analysis of the facts. The Court's role is rather to review under Article 10 the decisions the domesti

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17