Previous 1 / 19 Next

THIRD SECTION CASE OF OOO MEMO v. RUSSIA (Application no. 2840/10) JUDGMENT Art 10 • Freedom of expression • No legitimate aim for civil defamation proceedings against a media outlet, seeking to protect “reputation” of a public authority as such and unrelated to any economic activity • Interests of executive bodies with State powers in maintaining a good reputation differing from those of natural person or legal entities competing in the marketplace • Risk of hampering media freedom and chilling effect, through shielding executive bodies from media criticism • Easily identifiable individual members of such a body not excluded from bringing proceedings in their own name STRASBOURG 15 March 2022 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

OOO Memo v. Russia

Case Law

Country

Russia

Country Location

Latitude: 55.84775990443999

Longitude: 37.50146462023251

Country Location (linked Case Law): Russia

Decision Date: 15 de mar. de 2022

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Inadmissible

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Violation of a Rule of International Law

Keywords

Defamation / Reputation
Digital Rights
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)

Judicial Body: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Court Name: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Case Number: App. No. 2840/10

Case Summary: In its judgment of 15 March 2022 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) expressed its concerns about the risk for democracy of court proceedings instituted with a view to limiting public participation, interfering with the freedom of expression by media, journalists, or other public watchdogs. This is the first time the ECtHR has referred to the notion of SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). The case concerns a civil defamation suit brought by a Russian regional state body against a media company. The media company was ordered to publish on its website a retraction to the effect that it had published false statements, tarnishing the claimant’s business reputation. The ECtHR found that although civil defamation proceedings were open to private or public companies to protect their reputation, this could not be the case for a large, taxpayer-funded, executive body like the claimant in this case. It decided that the interference with the media company’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was not justified by a “legitimate aim”, as the Russian regional state body could not rely on the “protection of reputation and rights of others” as listed in Article 10 § 2 ECHR. The ECtHR found that allowing executive bodies to bring defamation proceedings against members of the media places an excessive and disproportionate burden on the media and could have an inevitable chilling effect on the media in the performance of their task of purveyor of information and public watchdog.

This post by Dirk Voorhoof, Human Rights Centre UGent and Legal Human Academy, originally appeared on the Strasbourg Observers blog and is adapted for the database with permission and thanks.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Related Analysis

How are courts responding to SLAPPS? Analysis of selected court decisions from across the globe

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 23 de ago. de 2024

Primary Documents

Third Section Judgment
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

OOO Memo v. Russia

Primary Documents

Notifications