Advanced search
1 file | 721.84 KB Add to list

OOO Memo v. Russia : ECtHR prevents defamation claims by executive bodies

Dirk Voorhoof (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered a judgment in which, for the first time, it refers to the notion of SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). In its judgment of 15 March 2022 in the case of OOO Memo v. Russia the ECtHR expresses 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. 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.
Keywords
SLAPP, freedom of expression, abusive litigation, defamation, no legitimate aim, reputation of executive body, chilling effect, democracy, public watchdog, state body's reputation

Downloads

  • SOBLOG.VOORHOOF.OOOMEMORussia.Final2022.pdf
    • full text (Accepted manuscript)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 721.84 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Voorhoof, Dirk. “OOO Memo v. Russia : ECtHR Prevents Defamation Claims by Executive Bodies.” STRASBOURG OBSERVERS, no. 01/04/2022, Human Rights Centre, 2022.
APA
Voorhoof, D. (2022). OOO Memo v. Russia : ECtHR prevents defamation claims by executive bodies. Ghent: Human Rights Centre.
Chicago author-date
Voorhoof, Dirk. 2022. “OOO Memo v. Russia : ECtHR Prevents Defamation Claims by Executive Bodies.” STRASBOURG OBSERVERS. Ghent: Human Rights Centre.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Voorhoof, Dirk. 2022. “OOO Memo v. Russia : ECtHR Prevents Defamation Claims by Executive Bodies.” STRASBOURG OBSERVERS. Ghent: Human Rights Centre.
Vancouver
1.
Voorhoof D. OOO Memo v. Russia : ECtHR prevents defamation claims by executive bodies. STRASBOURG OBSERVERS. Ghent: Human Rights Centre; 2022.
IEEE
[1]
D. Voorhoof, “OOO Memo v. Russia : ECtHR prevents defamation claims by executive bodies,” STRASBOURG OBSERVERS, no. 01/04/2022. Human Rights Centre, Ghent, 2022.
@misc{8749300,
  abstract     = {{The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered a judgment in which, for the first time, it refers to the notion of SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). In its judgment of 15 March 2022 in the case of OOO Memo v. Russia the ECtHR expresses 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.

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.}},
  author       = {{Voorhoof, Dirk}},
  keywords     = {{SLAPP,freedom of expression,abusive litigation,defamation,no legitimate aim,reputation of executive body,chilling effect,democracy,public watchdog,state body's reputation}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{01/04/2022}},
  pages        = {{6}},
  publisher    = {{Human Rights Centre}},
  series       = {{STRASBOURG OBSERVERS}},
  title        = {{OOO Memo v. Russia : ECtHR prevents defamation claims by executive bodies}},
  url          = {{https://strasbourgobservers.com/2022/04/01/ooo-memo-v-russia-ecthr-prevents-defamation-claims-by-executive-bodies/}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}