Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 "Дело "Романенко и другие (Romanenko and others) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

и права которых призван защищать пункт 2 статьи 10 Конвенции.
5. В заключение и поскольку дело касается вмешательства в связи с иском Управления судебного департамента в Приморском крае, Европейскому суду следовало ограничить свой вывод о наличии нарушения статьи 10 Конвенции отсутствием законной цели, не касаясь вопроса соразмерности.





EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ROMANENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 11751/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 8.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 Romanenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic}, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and {Andre} Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 11751/03) 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 three Russian nationals, Mrs Tatyana Gavriilovna Romanenko, Mrs Irina Georgievna Grebneva and Mr Vladimir Fedorovich Trubitsyn ("the applicants"), on 26 February 2003.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms A. Soboleva and Mr V. Monakhov, lawyers with Jurists for Constitutional Rights and Freedoms (JURIX), a non-governmental organisation 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 applicants complained under Article 10 about a violation of their right to impart information.
4. On 23 May 2005 the President of the Section granted the Open Society Justice Initiative and the Moscow Media Law and Policy Institute leave to intervene as third parties in the proceedings (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court).
5. By a decision of 17 November 2005 the Court declared the application admissible.
6. The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

7. The applicants live in Vladivostok and Arsenyev in the Primorskiy Region. They are founders of the Arsenyevskie Vesti weekly newspaper.

A. The first article and the department's defamation action

8. Ms P. published an article under the title "All Power Comes from the Forest" ("Вся власть из леса") in issue No. 4 of the applicants' newspaper, dated 24 - 30 January 2002. The article stated that, while the town of Dalnerechensk suffered from underfunding, massive and unlawful felling of trees and illegal sales of timber to China thrived. A regional roundtable (panel) on the rational use and protection of forests revealed that representatives of Chinese companies were constantly present at many timber yards in Dalnerechensk and offered cash dollars for timber, whether documented or not. Such companies were registered at fictitious addresses outside the region.
9. The article went on to quote from an open letter which had been adopted by the participants in the panel:
"All these irregularities



> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 23 24 25

	Поделиться:	Tweet