on to abusive, strong or intemperate language; it might be said that the expressions used verged on exaggeration and provocation, but, having regard to the purpose of the publication and the impact it was designed to have, the Court is of the opinion that the language used cannot be regarded as excessive.
33. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the domestic authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation when finding the applicant liable for defamation. They did not adduce "sufficient" reasons justifying the interference at issue. The fact that the proceedings were civil rather than criminal in nature and that the final award was relatively small does not detract from the fact that the standards applied by the Russian courts were not compatible with the principles embodied in Article 10. Accordingly, the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was disproportionate to the aim pursued and not "necessary in a democratic society".
34. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
35. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the District Court had gone beyond the scope of B.'s claims and failed to resolve the defamation dispute in accordance with the fairness guarantees set out in Article 6 of the Convention.
36. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the provision invoked. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
37. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
38. The applicant claimed 150 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing the amount he had paid to B. pursuant to the domestic judgments, and EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
39. The Government considered the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage reasonable. They noted, however, that this amount could be awarded to the applicant subject to proof that he had actually paid the said amount to B. As for the applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, they considered it excessive and proposed that a finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
40. The Court notes that the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage is directly related to the judgments issued by the domestic courts, which it found to have been incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention. It therefore accepts the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 150. It further considers that the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant cannot be sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards him EUR 1,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
41. The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
C. Default interest
42. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS,
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
