1 Dec 2011 | Europe and Central Asia, Russia
Earlier this month, Russia’s Department of Presidential Affairs won three defamation lawsuits against newspaper Novaya Gazeta in just one week.
“The court is being used as a censorship instrument; it has been serving officials rather than law lately”, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov told Index on Censorship.
The Department of Presidential Affairs of the Russian Federation is a state executive authority responsible for logistical support and social amenities for Russian federal authorities.
“Novaya Gazeta” is a twice-weekly newspaper owned by media tycoon Alexander Lebedev and the former president of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. It is famous for its investigations and criticism of authorities.
In the week of 14–20 November Moscow’s Basmanny Court passed judgements on three libel claims brought by Department of Presidential Affairs against Novaya Gazeta. They all concerned publications about federal budget spending for controversial purposes.
One of the articles concerned firms close to the Department of Presidential Affairs which took part in drawing budget funds while reconstructing Russia’s main memorial to soldiers of World War II — the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Kremlin wall. The article contained a supposition that 91 million roubles were withdrawn from Russian federal budget for reconstruction works which might have had already been done.
The Department of Presidential Affairs filed a suit against Novaya Gazeta and the article’s author Roman Anin, claiming the information about alleged misapplication of funds was defamatory. The other two defamation suits the Department won against “Novaya Gazeta” were brought in response to articles about its controversial transactions with short-lived companies, and high staff salaries which exceeded the ones publically declared.
The newspaper will also have to pay the Department and personally it’s head Vladimir Kozhin 100 thousand roubles (2049,77 GBP) in damages for the article about extremely high salaries. This article’s author Zinaida Burskaya has to pay 10 thousand roubles (204,98 GBP). The statements in them will also have to be refuted in “Novaya Gazeta”.
The Department’s spokesperson Viktor Khrekov said he was satisfied with the court’s decisions.
The newspaper’s attorney Yaroslav Kozheurov, in his order, said he will appeal the court’s decision. He expressed confidence that in spite of the judge’s decision the facts mentioned in the articles were sufficiently proven in the court.
“But even such controversial proceedings are better than shooting journalists,” says Muratov. Two“Novaya Gazeta” journalists were assassinated in last five years: Anna Politkovskaya, Anastasia Baburova. “Defamation suits will remain a key factor in suppressing free speech as long as Vladimir Putin rules the country,” Muratov concluded.
22 Nov 2011 | Europe and Central Asia, Russia, Uncategorized
The Russian State Duma has decriminalised defamation, having passed amendments to the Criminal Code.
There are two major legislative threats to freedom of expression in Russia: libel and antiextremism legislation. Both are frequently abused to silence journalists, bloggers, opposition leaders — anyone critical of government policy or of influential businessmen.
Libel legislation in Russia used to include two types of penalties: criminal and civil. They were specified in the articles 129 and 130 of the Criminal Code and article 152 of the Civil Code.
Article 129 of the Criminal Code described both slander (deliberately falsified information denigrating the honour and dignity of another person or undermining his reputation) and libel (the same, but published or broadcast in mass media, etc). It stipulated punishment by a fine, or compulsory work (for a term of 120 to 180 hours), or corrective labour (for a term up to two years), or restraint of liberty (for a term up to three years) or arrest (for a term of three to six months), or deprivation of liberty (much like arrest, normally longer and with less harsh conditions; for a term up to three years).
Article 130 of the Criminal Code talked about “denegration of the honour and dignity of another person, expressed in indecent form”. The insult is punishable by a fine, or by compulsory works (for a term of up to 180 hours), or by corrective labour (for a term of up to one year).
The article 152 of the Civil Code — “Protection of the Honour, Dignity and Business Reputation” specified the citizen’s right to claim through court the information he considered discrediting be refuted, unless the one who spread it proved it was true. The citizen also has the right to claim compensation of the losses and the moral damage.
Before the amendments become operative one still has the right to file two defamation suits at a time: a criminal and a civil one. According to Russian law, the failure in civil proceedings on defamation doesn’t affect one’s rights to carry on criminal proceedings. This is often misused by those who fight freedom of expression advocates in Russia: criminal investigation they seek is apt to include confiscation of journalists’ data carriers.
The other amendment lawmakers passed concerned threats and violence against journalists and demanding journalists’ equipment. These crimes will be punished by a prison term of up to six years or corrective labour for a term of five years.
Together with defamation decriminalisation, this amendment was hailed by many human rights activists in and outside Russia. Still some scepticism remains: amendments don’t eradicate corruption in Russian judicial and law enforcement system, which doesn’t guarantee that journalists will not be persecuted, beaten and killed. Particularly it doesn’t assure that murders and assaults of journalists which took place in post-Soviet Russia will be finally investigated into, rights activists say. Anna Politkovskaya’s murderers, or people who almost beat Mikhail Beketov and Oleg Kashin to death, have not yet been identified, let alone punished.
1 Nov 2011 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features
Russian rock journalist Artemy Troitsky’s scathing criticism of rock stars, politicians and policemen has dropped him in legal hot water this year. Elena Vlasenko updates Index on his libel woes
(more…)
6 Oct 2011 | News and features
Defamation cases should be mediated, and if they are not, they should be the subject of an early neutral evaluation by a High Court Judge, say Index on Censorship and English PEN in their report on defamation procedure.
Funded by the Nuffield Foundation, the Alternative Libel Project’s first report published on 6 October also recommends that:
• judges must use stricter case management;
• litigants should be able to make a stand alone application to determine the meaning of the allegations in question; and
• a costs regime must be introduced to redress the inequality of arms between the parties.
John Kampfner, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:
Defamation procedure needs to change so the balance between freedom of expression and reputation is not affected by the relative resources of litigants but by the strength of their claims. The recommendations we have made will not only result in many more cases being resolved very early on, they will ensure that those cases that do go to trial in the High Court are dealt with more efficiently.
The report is a preliminary one and Index on Censorship and English PEN are inviting views on their proposals before the 18 November. To comment, please e-mail Helen Anthony at helen[@]englishpen.org.
The Alternative Libel Project Preliminary Report October 2011
