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

grounds had existed at the time of the withdrawal in question.

C. Third-party submissions

49. On 10 April 2008 Mr Svistunov (the former editor-in-chief of Vecherniy Magadan) submitted his observations on the case, which were admitted as third-party submissions.
50. Mr Svistunov claimed that about 1,000 copies of the newspaper had been withdrawn. He further argued that the withdrawal had been related to the critical article written by the applicant, which concerned high-level politicians involved in the privatisation of the Kolyma hydroelectric power plant. He regarded the withdrawal as interference with the freedom of the press; it had led to his resignation from the position of editor-in-chief of the newspaper.
51. In their comments on Mr Svistunov's observations the Government reiterated their arguments on the merits of the applicant's complaint. Hence, they insisted that only 120 copies had been withdrawn. They further reiterated that it had been Mr Svistunov's own decision to withdraw the unsold part of the print run. In addition, the article written by the applicant implied that the State officials named in it had been involved in criminal activity. Consequently, the publication of such an article could have entailed financial liability on the part of the newspaper for the publication of untrue facts. The editor-in-chief of Vecherniy Magadan had therefore decided to recall the copies in order to protect the newspaper from possible lawsuits, fines or even a revocation of its licence. The decision to withdraw the copies from sale had been taken by Mr Svistunov without any external pressure. His own submissions to the contrary were unreliable, since he had been dismissed from his position and was therefore biased.

D. The Court's assessment

1. Whether there was an "interference" with the applicant's
freedom of expression

52. The Court reiterates that, as a general rule, privately owned newspapers must be free to exercise editorial discretion in deciding whether to publish articles, comments and letters submitted by private individuals or even by their own staff reporters and journalists. The State's obligation to ensure the individual's freedom of expression does not give private citizens or organisations an unfettered right of access to the media in order to put forward opinions (see X and the Association Z v. the United Kingdom, No. 4515/70, Commission decision of 12 July 1971, Yearbook 14, p. 538; Stiftelsen Contra v. Sweden, No. 12734/87, Commission decision of 9 December 1988, unreported; and, mutatis mutandis, Murphy v. Ireland, No. 44179/98, § 61, 10 July 2003). A right of access to the privately owned press may be conceded in some circumstances (see Winer v. the United Kingdom, No. 10871/84, Commission decision of 10 July 1986, Decisions and Reports (DR) 48, p. 154, and Spencer v. the United Kingdom, Nos. 28851/95 and 28852/95, Commission decision of 16 January 1998, DR 92-A, p. 56), but such cases remain an exception.
53. The Court's approach may be different in a situation where the press is, de jure or de facto, in the hands of a monopoly, especially a Government monopoly (see the very detailed analysis of the Convention case-law in this regard in Manole and Others v. Moldova, No. 13936/02, §§ 95 et seq., ECHR 2009-... (extracts)). In the field of audiovisual broadcasting the Court stated that "where a State... decide[s] to create a public broadcasting system, ...domestic law and practice must guarantee that the system provides a pluralistic service" (see Manole and others, cited above, § 100 and § 101).
54. Turing to the present case, the Court notes that Vecherniy Magadan did not hold a monopoly over the printed press in the region; it operated in a sector open to competition, both de jure and de facto. Even if a newspap



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 15 16 17

	Поделиться:	Tweet