European Court of Human Rights
20 February 2007
Facts:
The applicant, Pavel Petrovich Ivanov, residing in Veliky Novgorod, Russia, is the founder, owner, and editor of the monthly newspaper Russkoye Veche. He authored and published a series of articles in which he portrayed Jewish people as a source of evil in Russia, accused them of plotting against the Russian people, and denied their right to national dignity. In 2003, he was charged with incitement to ethnic, racial, or religious hatred for a series of articles attacking Jews. Initially acquitted, he was later convicted based on expert evidence, receiving a journalism ban. On appeal, the ban was replaced with a fine due to its retroactive nature.
Complaint:
The applicant complained that his conviction for publishing the articles violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10. Under Article 6, he argued that the criminal proceedings were unfair. He also invoked Articles 13 and 14, alleging that the courts had refused his request for additional expert opinions and had discriminated against him on the basis of his religious beliefs.
Court’s Ruling:
The Court emphasized that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in a democratic society, but it is not absolute and carries duties and responsibilities. It found that the applicant’s articles did not merely criticize a particular group or religion but amounted to a general and hostile attack against the Jewish people, portraying them as inherently evil and a threat to society. The Court noted that the hate speech in question (targeting the Jewish community) was incompatible with the values of the Convention, including tolerance, social peace, and non-discrimination. It emphasized that expressions promoting ethnic hatred fall outside the protection of Article 10, such speech undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. As a result, the complaint under Article 10 was declared inadmissible.
Regarding Article 6, The applicant also raised concerns about the handling of evidence and expert reports. The Court found no indication of unfairness, explaining that such matters are governed by domestic courts, and no violation of due process of denial of remedy was apparent. The domestic proceedings had been adversarial, and the applicant had had the opportunity to present his arguments and challenge the prosecution’s evidence. Mere disagreement with the court’s conclusions did not make the trial unfair. Therefore, the Court found that there was no violation of Article 6.
The complaint under Article 13 was declared inadmissible because the applicant did not have an “arguable claim” under Article 10, and Article 13 only applies where there is such a claim. As for Article 14 (on grounds of religious discrimination), the Court reiterated that this provision has no independent application and must relate to another Convention right. Since the substantive complaints under Articles 10, 13, and 6 had already been found inadmissible, the Court held that Article 14 was also inapplicable.
Accordingly, the Court declared the entire application inadmissible.