The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found that Russian electoral laws violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), which guarantees freedom of expression. A Russian media outlet was fined for engaging in what was deemed to be unlawful campaigning, which was challenged by the media outlet under Article 10 of the Convention. The Media Legal Defence Initiative and the Mass Media Defence Centre made third party interventions arguing that the legislation in question had a serious chilling effect on political journalism, affecting the right of voters to make an informed choice.
The applicant is a regional newspaper, Orlovskaya Iskra, which published two critical articles on the then-governor of the region, who was standing as a candidate in the 2007 Russian parliamentary elections. The articles detailed accusations of corruption and nepotism against the governor, including an assertion that he had closed down a newspaper for publishing criticisms of him. The Regional Electoral Committee, which oversees compliance with Russian electoral laws, found that the articles “created a negative attitude on the part of the voters towards...United Russia”, and amounted to election campaigning, or counter-campaigning against one candidate. Because the articles were not paid for by the campaign fund of any political party, as required by Russian law, it was classified under administrative law as “election campaigning” rather than reporting on matters of public concern or disseminating information. The applicant was fined 35,000 roubles and subsequent challenges to the fine were rejected by superior courts.
The applicant alleged that the classification as election campaigning rather than journalism and the fine amounted to a violation of Article 10. Russia argued that the justification for this electoral legislation was that print media should be subject to “rigorous requirements” of impartiality, neutrality and equality of treatment during an election period, and that the aim of the rules was to protect the rights of candidates and voters who might be misled if it were not clear who sponsored campaigning activities. The ECtHR rejected these arguments, finding that the press had a “public watchdog” role which was as necessary during election time as at any other time. It held that this role is not limited merely to “using the press as a medium of communication” and reiterated the rights guaranteed by Article 3, Protocol 1 of the Convention of the right to free elections. It was emphasised that Article 10 and Article 3, Protocol 1 reinforce each other in cases such as the one before it, as foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy.
It was held that the Russian framework had the effect of restricting the applicant’s freedom to impart information and ideas and subjecting its mode of expression to regulation as a “campaign” amounted to interference with Article 10, for which Russia had not shown sufficiently compelling justifications.
Click here for a copy of the judgment.