Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 22.10.2009 "Дело "Пасько (Pasko) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

нных соображений я не могу заключить, что Закон "О государственной тайне" в его первоначальной редакции и Указ Президента от 30 ноября 1995 г. могли рассматриваться в качестве достаточной правовой основы для предполагаемого вмешательства в права заявителя, предусмотренные статьей 10 Конвенции в отношении периода с 11 сентября по 8 октября 1997 г.





EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF PASKO v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 69519/01)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 22.X.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 Pasko v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 69519/01) 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 Grigoriy Mikhaylovich Pasko ("the applicant"), on 20 January 2001.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr F. Elgesem, a lawyer practising in Oslo. The Russian Government ("the Government") were initially represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
3. The applicant complained, in particular, of his conviction on the basis of retrospective application of the relevant law and of a violation of his freedom of expression. He relied on Articles 7 and 10 of the Convention.
4. By a decision of 28 August 2008, the Court declared the application partly admissible.
5. The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine), the parties replied in writing to each other's observations.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Vladivostok.
7. At the material time the applicant was a Navy officer and worked as a military journalist on the Russian Pacific Fleet's newspaper Boyevaya Vakhta ("Battle Watch"). The applicant's articles mainly focused on problems of environmental pollution and other issues related to the activity of the Russian Pacific Fleet.
8. According to the applicant, he also worked, on a freelance basis, for a Japanese TV station, NHK, and a Japanese newspaper, Asahi Simbun, and supplied their representatives, in particular accredited correspondents Mr T.Dz. and Mr T.O. with openly available information and video footage. The Government submitted in this connection, with reference to witness statements from the editor and deputy editor of Boyevaya Vakhta, that the applicant had not been entrusted with any task of cooperating with Mr T.O., apart from assisting the latter in visiting Russian military units and apprising him of the professional activities of Boyevaya Vakhta. According to the Government, any furthe



> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 38 39 40

	Поделиться:	Tweet