Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 "Дело "Порубова (Porubova) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]





that the emphasis in the impugned articles was clearly on the suspicious transactions involving budgetary funds, whereas the reference in the opening passage to Mr V.'s homosexual relationship with Mr K. served not so much to lend colour to the events as, more importantly, to explain why the scheme had been mounted in such a way that Mr K. would be its ultimate beneficiary. That the thrust of the articles was directed against the dubious transactions with taxpayers' money is also obvious from the concluding passage of the first article (see paragraph 10 above), in which the author explicitly acknowledged that the affair in question would have been a private matter had it not been for the involvement of high-ranking State officials, one of whom was still responsible for handling the regional budget.
45. The Court considers that, since both Mr V. and Mr K. were professional politicians - the head of the regional government and a member of the regional legislature respectively - they inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (compare Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria, No. 34315/96, § 37, 26 February 2002). It emphasises that the right of the public to be informed, which is an essential right in a democratic society, can even extend to aspects of the private life of public figures, particularly where politicians are concerned (see Editions Plon v. France, No. 58148/00, § 53, ECHR 2004-IV). By reporting facts - even controversial ones - capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society relating to politicians in the exercise of their functions, the press exercises its vital role of "watchdog" in a democracy by contributing to "impart[ing] information and ideas on matters of public interest" (see Von Hannover v. Germany, No. 59320/00, § 63, ECHR 2004-VI). The instant case is, in the Court's view, distinguishable from those cases in which publication of the photos or articles had the sole purpose of satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of the individual's private life (see Von Hannover, cited above, § 65; Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, No. 53678/00, § 45, ECHR 2004-X; Campmany y Diez de Revenga and {Lopez} Galiacho Perona v. Spain (dec.), No. 54224/00, ECHR 2000-XII; {Societe} Prisma Presse v. France (dec.), Nos. 66910/01 and 71612/01, 1 July 2003; and Julio Bou Gibert and El Hogar y La Moda J.A. v. Spain (dec.), No. 14929/02, 13 May 2003). As the Court has found above, the impugned articles purported to contribute to a debate on an issue of public concern. Accordingly, the Russian courts were required to demonstrate a "pressing social need" for the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression, but failed to do so.
46. The Court will next examine whether the decisions of the Russian courts were based on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts. It observes that the actual scope of the charges against the applicant was confined to the allegation that "V. and K. [were] homosexuals and lovers who [had] engaged in a homosexual act in the building of the region's representative office in Moscow". The Court cannot but note that this sentence, as quoted in the list of charges, was not actually contained in the contested articles but rather represented the prosecution's interpretation of the opening passage of the article, which was subsequently endorsed by the domestic courts without any inquiry as to whether or not the wording corresponded to the actual text of the article. In the Court's view, an examination of whether or not the applicant actually wrote the words that the prosecution claimed she had written was crucial in circumstances where the applicant faced a charge of disseminating false statements.
47. It is important to note that the applicant was not penalised for the unauthorised collection an



> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 19

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.1218 с