OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT
the proportionality of the interference, the Court observed that “the limits of
permissible criticism are wider still with regard to the government than in
relation to a private citizen or even a politician” (ibid., § 54). In the case of
Romanenko and Others v. Russia (no. 11751/03, 8 October 2009) regarding
civil defamation proceedings instituted by the courts’ management
department of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the Court, while
noting that there may be sound policy reasons to decide that public bodies
should not have standing to sue in defamation in their own capacity, accepted
the existence of a legitimate aim of “protection of reputation and rights of
others” (ibid., § 39). Building on these findings, the Court observed in a case
concerning defamation proceedings against journalists in which the
Copenhagen University Hospital, a public body, was a claimant, that it was
not convinced by the applicants’ submission that the judiciary is the only
public authority whose protection is capable of constituting a legitimate aim
under Article 10 § 2 (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, § 47,
5 December 2017).
42. In its judgments against Russia adopted subsequently to that in the
case of Romanenko and Others, in the absence of a dispute between the
parties regarding the existence of a legitimate aim, the Court, when
examining complaints under Article 10 stemming from the defamation
proceedings brought by a remand prison and its two officers (see Reznik
v. Russia, no. 4977/05, § 41, 4 April 2013), by a university (see Kharlamov
v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 25, 8 October 2015), by the Chief Military
Prosecutor’s Office of Russia (see Novaya Gazeta and Milashina, cited
above, § 62), by the electoral commission and the body of the executive of a
constituent entity of the Russian Federation as well as a regional branch of
the United Russia party (see Ostanina v. Russia, no. 22169/11, § 19, 17 April
2018), or by the body of the executive of a constituent entity of the Russian
Federation (see Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, § 45, 8 October 2019, and
Kommersant and Others v. Russia, nos. 37482/10 and 37486/10, 23 June
2020), focused on the assessment of proportionality of an interference.
43. Given that the parties contested whether the interference complained
of had pursued a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the
Convention, considering the growing awareness of the risks that court
proceedings instituted with a view to limiting public participation bring for
democracy, as highlighted by the Council of Europe Commissioner for
Human Rights (see paragraph 23 above), and in view of the power imbalance
between the claimant and the defendant in the present case, the Court
considers it apt to establish in the present case whether the interference
complained of, - that is, the civil defamation proceedings brought by the
Administration of the Volgograd Region against the applicant company, a
media outlet, - was in pursuance of the legitimate aim of “protection of the
reputation of others” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.
11