A member of the United Russia lost his suit against an anti-corruption blogger due to a domestic court’s reliance on ECHR case-law

On 11 October 2011, Lyublinsky district court in Moscow dismissed the lawsuit of Vladimir Svirid, a member of the ruling United Russia party, against Alexey Navalny, a Russian anti-corruption blogger, as reported by Vedomosti (the link is in Russian).  Judging from the court’s ruling, the extracts of which Navalny published today in his blog, the court substantiated its findings relying, inter alia, on Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) and ECHR case-law, namely: Grinberg v. Russia, and Bezymyanyy v. Russia. [The full text of the court’s ruling in Russian can be found here].

Facts of the case

On 2 February 2011 Alexey Navalny called the United Russia party “a party of corruption, swindlers and thieves” and spoke negatively of the party’s activity during his on-air interview to the radio station “Finam FM.” Vladimir Svirid, a member of the United Russia party, did not agree with Navalny’s opinion and claimed that such statements insulted him and discredited his honor and dignity. In his claim, Svirid asked Navalny, inter alia, to recant his statements about United Russia on the official internet site of “Finam FM” and to pay compensation in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles (approximately 33,000 USD) as restitution for non-pecuniary damages.

Findings of the court

The court did not find any violation of Svirid’s rights and dismissed his claims relying both on national legislation and the ECHR case-law. According to national legislation, the claimant had to prove, inter alia, that the relevant statements about United Russia contained information specifically about him, which he failed to do. Thus, the court agreed with Navalny, that his statements at issue did not contain any accusation towards Svirid specifically or anybody else, rather they concerned the United Russia party and its activities as a whole.

The court also supported its findings with the relevant ECHR case-law, referring to it as the part of the national legal system according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. First, having considered Navalny’s statements as value judgments, the court cited paragraph 30 of the ECHR judgment in the case of Grinberg v. Russia, according to which “while the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfill and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10.”

Second, as the final chord sustaining its findings the court cited paragraph 35 of the ECHR judgment in the case of Bezymyannyy v. Russia:

“According to the Court's well-established case-law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for individual self-fulfillment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no “democratic society”.”

Conclusion

The ruling of the Lyublinsky district court deserves applause. The judge did not limit its analysis of the legal norms to the national law only, but competently applied the Convention provisions and the relevant case-law of the ECHR to the facts of the case, which rarely happens in the courts of lower instances.

It is also a perfect example of how EHCR rulings can contribute to the promotion of the rule of law via domestic courts in Russia. The ECHR alone can do little without support of the domestic authorities, especially courts that are one of the main guarantors of the rule of law. Applying the Convention provisions and ECHR case-law, the courts convey a message to the participants of the trial and all other persons that they are aware of Russia’s obligations under the Convention and are willing to respect human rights and international law.

Moreover, given the high reputation of the ECHR, the more frequent the domestic courts competently sustain their findings with ECHR case-law and the Convention, the more trust and respect they will gain among the Russian citizens.