срока и до момента выплаты на эти суммы должны начисляться простые проценты, размер которых определяется предельной кредитной ставкой Европейского центрального банка, действующей в период неуплаты, плюс три процента;
4) отклонил оставшуюся часть требований заявителя о справедливой компенсации.
Совершено на английском языке, уведомление о Постановлении направлено в письменном виде 3 декабря 2009 г. в соответствии с пунктами 2 и 3 правила 77 Регламента Суда.
Председатель Палаты Суда
Христос РОЗАКИС
Секретарь Секции Суда
Серен НИЛЬСЕН
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ALEKSANDR KRUTOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 15469/04)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 3.XII.2009)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Aleksandr Krutov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic},
Anatoly Kovler,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 15469/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Krutov ("the applicant"), on 23 March 2004.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr M. Rachkovskiy, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been found liable for expressing his opinion.
4. On 14 October 2005 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Saratov.
6. On 9 January 2003 the applicant published an article under the headline "The Political Scene in 2002: Old Faces and New Times" (Политические расклады 2002 года: старые лица и новые времена) in issue No. 1 (10) of the Nedelya Oblasti newspaper. The article examined the interplay of political groups in the Saratov Region and, in particular, the part played by the prosecutor's office of the Saratov Region and B., the Saratov Regional Prosecutor.
7. B. sued the applicant and the editorial board for defamation before the Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov. He claimed that the following extract from the article had damaged his honour, dignity and professional reputation:
"Probably, only this [the political union between the town hall and the regional prosecutor's office] can account for the regional prosecutor's office's perseverance in instigating criminal proceedings against members of the regional government..., while at the same time shielding the serving officials of the town hall and the town legislature from criminal prosecution. For example, in the corru
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 13 14 15