Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 "Дело "Обухова (Obukhova) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

overnment's argument that, the injunction notwithstanding, the proceedings on the claim for damages had retained their public character is irrelevant because the applicant alleged a violation of the right to impart information rather than a violation of the right to a public hearing. The Court reiterates in this connection that the duty of the press to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest extends to the reporting and commenting on court proceedings which contribute to their publicity and are thus perfectly consonant with the requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that hearings be public (see News Verlags GmbH & Co. KG, cited above, § 56). It is relevant for the Court's assessment that the scope of the injunction was not limited to the specific statement about Judge Baskova's attempt to secure undue advantage in the proceedings, but rather restricted, in a general and unqualified manner, the possibility of printing any material whatsoever relating to these proceedings. The Court is unable to accept that such a sweeping prohibition was "necessary in a democratic society". It agrees with the applicant that the injunction at issue was a disservice to the authority of the judiciary because it reduced transparency of the proceedings and may have given rise to doubts about the court's impartiality, for "justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A No. 86, p. 14, § 26). It is also a matter of particular concern for the Court that the injunction listed as one of its purposes the necessity to prevent the newspaper from publishing materials "stating the opposite view". It reiterates that the possibility of expressing different views is the very essence of pluralism, without which there is no "democratic society".
28. Having regard to the above, the Court finds that by issuing an injunction on the applicant which was excessively broad {vis-a-vis} the legitimate aims it sought to achieve, the domestic authorities overstepped the limited margin of appreciation afforded to them in the cases, in which prior restraints on publications are at issue (see Editions Plon, cited above).
29. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

30. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."

A. Damage

31. The applicant claimed 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
32. The Government considered that the claim was excessive and unsubstantiated.
33. The Court finds that the applicant suffered non-pecuniary damage, which would not be adequately compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court accepts the applicant's claim in the amount of EUR 1,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.

B. Costs and expenses

34. The applicant did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.

C. Default interest

35. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
2. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within



> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15

	Поделиться:	Tweet