5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Suponevo, the Bryansk Region.
6.  The applicant has been editor of a weekly newspaper, Bryanskiye Budni (Брянские будни), since he founded it in 1999.
7.  On 21 February 2008 the applicant published an article in Bryanskiye Budni no. 429/7 headlined “Fedorov always takes the lead” (“Федоров всегда впереди”) about Viktor Fedorovich Fedorov, a member of the Bryansk Region Duma and the head of the regional Committee on Legislation, Law and Order and State Service. It discussed Mr Fedorov’s having switched political parties and his wealth. The article read as follows, in so far as relevant:
“He got into the regional Duma on the party lists of the Social Democrats. I remember that in a big beautiful poster Fedorov was seen showing off in the company of Anatoliy Bugayev and Nikolay Rudenok. Now Viktor Fedorovich is a member of the Duma faction of United Russia, as is Mr Bugayev. A very convenient and interesting position which, most importantly, is based on principle. In fact, they both ‘dumped’ the Social Democrat Nikolay Rudenok. Some say that is pure betrayal. Others contend that that is just politics ...
Now the ‘sweet couple’ of former Social Democrats are united in their dislike of the speaker of the regional Duma Vladimir Gaydukov. Considering that the deputy speaker Bugayev is eager to get the post of speaker, it is very likely that he could have promised his current post to the head of the Committee on Legislation ... And why not?
At present Mr Fedorov is at a political crossroads. If they include him on the United Russia list for the elections to the regional Duma, he will only be at the very end of the list. To be a candidate in a single-member constituency entails expenses, and that would go against his principles.
However, according to rumour, the head of the Committee on Legislation, Law and Order and State Service is a well-to-do man and has a ‘small wholesale business’ in neighbouring Orel. Sources note that he all too often takes a ‘promenade’ there in his official cars.
At first they thought Mr Fedorov was going there for the rich legislative experience of Orel’s parliamentarians. However, it became clear later that the ‘experience’ he wanted was of a somewhat different nature ...
During the three years of his ‘parliamentary career’ the head of the Committee on Legislation, Law and Order and State Service bought three cars for himself. And each one was a foreign car that was cooler than the one before ...”
8.  The following is the original Russian text:
“В областную же Думу он попал по партийным спискам социал-демократов. Помню, что на большом красивом плакате Федоров красовался рядом с Анатолием Бугаевым и Николаем Руденком. Сейчас Виктор Федорович уже является членом думской фракции «Единая Россия», как и господин Бугаев. Очень удобная и интересная, а главное принципиальная позиция. Фактически и один, и другой «кинули» лидера социал-демократов Николая Руденка. Одни говорят, что это чистейшей воды предательство. Другие утверждают, что это – просто политика ...
Теперь «сладкая парочка» бывших социал-демократов «дружат» против спикера областной Думы Владимира Гайдукова. Если учесть, что вице-спикер Бугаев рвется на место председателя, то вполне возможно, он мог пообещать свой нынешний портфель главе комитета по законодательству ... А почему бы и нет?
В настоящее время господин Федоров на политическом распутье. Если на выборах в областную Думу его включат в списки «Единой России», то только в самом конце. Баллотироваться по одномандатному избирательному округу – надо раскошеливаться, а это не в его правилах.
Хотя по слухам, председатель комитета по законодательству, вопросам правопорядка и государственной службы состоятельный человек, и имеет свой «маленький оптовый бизнес» в соседнем Орле. Источники отмечают, что слишком часто он совершает туда «променаж» на служебных автомобилях.
Сначала думали, что господин Федоров ездит за богатым законодательным опытом орловских парламентариев. Но потом стало ясно, что это «опыт» несколько другого рода ...
За три года своего «депутатства» председатель комитета по законодательству, вопросам правопорядка и государственной службы сменил три личных автомобиля. И с каждым разом приобретал иномарку одну круче другой ...”
9.  Mr Fedorov brought an action for defamation against the applicant and sought damages in the amount of 40,000 Russian roubles (RUB). He claimed, in particular, that the following passages were untrue and damaging to his honour and reputation: 5.  “During the three years of his ‘parliamentary career’ the head of the Committee ... bought three cars for himself. And each one was a foreign car that was cooler than the one before”.
10.  On 25 March 2008 the Bryanskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region (“the Bryanskiy District Court”) ordered an examination of the impugned passages by a psychological and linguistic expert.
11.  On 16 September 2008 Bryansk State University issued a report on the psychological and linguistic expert examination (“the expert report”). In the report the expert specifically noted that the veracity of the statements at issue was not the subject of the examination.
12.  On 17 November 2008 the Bryanskiy District Court allowed the claim in part. In its decision the court relied heavily on the expert report.
13.  With regard to the first quote, the court referred to the conclusion of the expert report that the expression “dumped” contained a negative assessment of the claimant as an immoral person and found that, therefore, the passage contained information damaging to his honour and reputation. The court dismissed the applicant’s submission to the effect that the word “dumped” had been used in quotes specifically to emphasise its figurative sense.
14.  At the same time, the court found that the second quote did not contain any information damaging to the claimant’s honour and reputation.
15.  With regard to the third and fourth quotes, the applicant argued that under Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution (see paragraph 24 below) everyone had the right to exercise an entrepreneurial activity and dispose of his or her property and that the quotes in question therefore contained no allegations of unlawful activities and could not be considered as defamatory. He also stated that the third quote had specified that it was based on rumours and therefore amounted to a supposition.
16.  The court dismissed the applicant’s arguments and referred to the conclusions of the expert report, which stated that the third and fourth quotes contained information which showed the claimant in a negative light. In particular, they had portrayed him as a person who had committed the immoral and antisocial deed of using his official car for private purposes, and who had possibly even exercised an unlawful activity because members of the regional Duma were prohibited from other paid duties. In that regard the court referred to section 6 of the Law on the State of a Deputy of the Bryansk Region Duma (see paragraph 26 below) and noted that the claimant had provided it with a certificate from the tax authorities showing that he had not been an individual entrepreneur since 2005. It also took into account certificates from his employer about four business trips in official cars to Orel between 2005 and 2007 and concluded that the passages in question contained information damaging to the claimant’s honour and reputation.
17.  Lastly, with regard to the fifth quote, the court again relied on the findings of the expert report, which stated that the impugned passage contained information damaging to the claimant’s honour and reputation as it implied antisocial conduct on his part by suggesting that he had pursued his own enrichment instead of defending the interests of the public. The court also took into account a registration certificate for a Mitsubishi Pajero Sport presented by the claimant and found that the quote was damaging to his honour and business reputation.
18.  The court found the editorial board of Bryanskiye Budni and the applicant jointly liable for RUB 40,000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the claimant. It also ordered the newspaper to publish a retraction within ten days of the judgment’s entry into force.
19.  The applicant appealed.
20.  On 25 December 2008 the Bryansk Regional Court upheld the judgment.