5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Fryazino, the Moscow Region.
6.  She is retired and receives a monthly pension, which at the material time amounted to 2,440 Russian roubles (RUB).
7.  The applicant is also the founder and editor-in-chief of Fryazinets (“the newspaper”), an independent weekly newspaper published in Fryazino with a circulation of 2,000-5,000 copies.
8.  On 14 April 2005 the Shchelkovo town prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation in case no. 81992 against a woman called S.P. under Article 201 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“abuse of powers by a person performing managerial functions in a commercial or other organisation”). The date is apparent from the decision to resume that criminal investigation, which was taken on 3 July 2006 (see paragraph 17 below). The initial investigation was opened on the grounds that S.P., as a person performing managerial functions at a non‑commercial organisation, had allegedly abused her position by fraudulently receiving 5,243 Russian roubles (RUB) in petty cash from Strela ZhSK[1].
9.  On an unspecified date in April 2005 the applicant published a statement by the Shchelkovo town deputy prosecutor in the newspaper. The statement included the following text:
“... On 14 April 2005 the Shchelkovo town prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case against S.P. under Article 201 § 1 of the Criminal Code ...”
10.  After publication of the statement the newspaper’s editorial department received a number of telephone calls from residents of Fryazino who informed the applicant that S.P., an employee at Fryazino town administration, had been rude to them when they had tried to make an appointment with the mayor through the administration’s Public Reception Office.
11.  In issue no. 16 (228) of 27 April-3 May 2005 of the newspaper the applicant published an article entitled “Reporting the details”, which included, among other statements, the following:
“... Our last issue contained information about the opening of a criminal case against S.P. by the Shchelkovo town prosecutor’s office. Who is she and what has she done? S.P. is an employee of the town administration and [as such] is a municipal civil servant working in the mayor’s Public Reception Office. It is forbidden for municipal civil servants to have a second job. However, S.P. combines her activities in the Public Reception Office – where, judging by the telephone calls to the editorial department, she does not always behave appropriately towards visitors: [she] raises her voice and is rude, for which she has been reprimanded by the head of the Public Reception Office, K., – with jobs as accountant at Strela-3 ZhSK ... and head of Strela ZhSK, and so forth. As head of Strela ZhSK, S.P. allowed financial irregularities to take place and [as a result of those] the [residential building] association’s members brought civil proceedings against her.”
12.  In August 2005 S.P. brought defamation proceedings against the applicant and the newspaper’s editorial department before the Shchelkovo Town Court (“the Town Court”), seeking a retraction of the information contained in the article and non‑pecuniary damages.
13.  On 14 September 2005 the Town Court, without the applicant being present, held a hearing. In particular, it questioned several witnesses: the head of Strela-3 ZhSK, a member of the governing board of Strela ZhSK, an employee of the Public Reception Office and three people who had visited it. It also examined several items of evidence, such as Strela ZhSK’s payroll records, a certificate confirming that S.P. had received a salary from it, and a document from the auditors of Strela ZhSK confirming that some of its funds had been spent in an irregular way. The Town Court did not consider whether the impugned information had consisted of statements of fact or value judgments. It found in the plaintiff’s favour, ordering the newspaper to publish a retraction of the statements that S.P. had not always behaved appropriately towards visitors, had raised her voice and had been rude, that she had combined her functions as a municipal civil servant with jobs at Strela ZhSK and Strela-3 ZhSK, that she had allowed financial irregularities to take place as head of Strela ZhSK and that members of the association had brought civil proceedings against her. The Town Court ordered the applicant to pay S.P. RUB 10,000 in non‑pecuniary damages. The judgment read, in particular, as follows:
“... The publication contains statements (сведения) [which are] a negative assessment of S.P.’s personality and her business abilities in connection with breaches of law, improper and unethical behaviour in discharging her official functions, and a lack of conscientiousness in performing her duties as head of ZhSK, which tarnish her honour, dignity and business reputation and are not true.
... The term ‘combining of employment’ in the Labour Code ... is defined as a worker performing other regularly paid work under a contract of employment. No proof has been presented to the court that S.P. has concluded a contract of employment with Strela ZhSK and Strela-3 ZhSK. S.P. has submitted that she performed the functions of bookkeeper and head of those entities as a volunteer and had no contract of employment or payment. ... [A] witness, Ya., a member of Strela ZhSK’s board, has explained that there was no contract between Strela ZhSK and S.P. The court rejects the part of his statement which said that S.P. received a salary from Strela ZhSK because the original of the document presented by the witness as a payroll document bore no statement to confirm that it was a payroll document. ... On the same grounds, the court finds that the certificate issued by [Strela] ZhSK to confirm that a salary was paid is unreliable [as evidence]. ...
... Given that it has not been proved during the court hearing that S.P. concluded contracts of employment with the [Strela ZhSK and Strela-3 ZhSK] associations and received remuneration for her work, the court finds that S.P. ... has not combined her activity as a municipal civil servant with any other employment.
Accordingly, the statements ... concerning a breach of the prohibition [for a municipal civil servant] on having a second job, that S.P. had other employment as an accountant at Strela-3 ZhSK, as head of Strela ZhSK and so forth, are untrue. ...
... the allegations of improper behaviour on the part of S.P. towards visitors to the Public Reception Office, such as raising her voice and being rude, have not been proven in the course of the court hearing. ...
The law does not define the term “financial irregularities”. ...
The Popular Encyclopaedia of Economics ... defines ... finances as the creation, movement, allocation and reallocation of financial resources. Bookkeeping is a documentary record of all commercial and financial operations, expenses and income.
Therefore, financial irregularities in respect of [residential building associations] should be recognised as ... expenditure which is against the interests of a ZhSK. ...
The court rejects the argument that breaches of the rules of bookkeeping amount to financial irregularities.
... the court comes to the conclusion that the financial irregularities for which S.P. was allegedly responsible during the time she performed the duties of head of Strela ZhSK ... have not been proven [by the applicant] ...
In determining non-pecuniary damages ..., the court takes into account that ... the published material was based on unverified information and that S.P., being a municipal civil servant ... is particularly deeply affected by articles alleging violations of the law by her, a lack of conscientiousness and unethical behaviour ...”
14.  The applicant appealed against the decision to the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). She stated, in particular, that the amount of damages was excessive as the Town Court had failed to take into account the small size of her retirement pension and had failed properly to examine the evidence she had submitted to prove the impugned statements.
15.  On 22 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the Town Court’s judgment in full, leaving the applicant’s arguments without examination.
16.  On 17 May 2006 the criminal investigation against S.P. was suspended.
17.  On 3 July 2006 the Shchelkovo town prosecutor resumed the investigation against S.P. in case no. 81992.
18.  In issue no. 1 (213) of 12-18 January 2005 of the newspaper, the applicant published an article entitled “The town’s black hole and attempted murder”. The article was an interview with N., a local businessman standing for mayor of Fryazino. The text of the article included the following statement by N. concerning L.K., the then head of the Fryazino Technical Inventory Bureau (the BTI)[2] and also the wife of U., the incumbent mayor:
“... as transpires from a complaint by residents to the Shchelkovo town prosecutor’s office, U.’s wife, a certain L.K., in abuse of her position as head of the Fryazino BTI ..., committed forgery by stealing ... the land-use plan for the building at 23 Polevaya Street and replacing it with [another] land-use plan ...”
19.  On an unspecified date in 2006 L.K. brought defamation proceedings against the applicant and N., arguing that the article had damaged her honour and dignity and tarnished her business reputation.
20.  On 11 May 2006 the Town Court found against the applicant andN., ordered that the newspaper publish a retraction and awarded L.K. RUB 15,000 and RUB 30,000 in non-pecuniary damages from the applicant and N. respectively. The Town Court did not examine whether the interview had concerned matters of public interest or the professional activities of a public figure, nor did it provide any reasons for holding the applicant liable for publishing it. N. and the applicant argued that the impugned statement had in fact been a value judgment which had not been susceptible of proof, which the Town Court dismissed as follows:
“The argument by N. and his representative that the impugned statement was a value judgment is refuted by the case material. ... N.’s statement ... has a precise statement of fact that L.K. had committed a crime by stealing and replacing the land-use plan ...
Having analysed the complaint by members of the public to the Shchelkovo town prosecutor regarding L.K., the court concludes that the defendant presented a statement of fact, not a value judgment, in the newspaper article. It can be concluded from the complaint by the public that she had, possibly, forged the land-use plan for the building and plot of land. Accordingly, it concerns an inquiry into [events] reported in the complaint. However, the defendant has distorted the contents of the complaint in the interview ... and its contents are represented as a statement of fact that L.K. committed forgery ... As can easily be verified by examining the text of ... the complaint, it does not include such a statement. ...
A statement of fact that a crime has been committed should be examined in the way established by the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore N.’s statement cannot be considered by the court as a value judgment or opinion and [its veracity] should be proven by presenting criminal-procedure documents to the court confirming that L.K.’s actions constituted a crime. In breach of Article 152 of the Civil Code, the defendant has not presented the court with such documents. ...
The defendant Ms Cheltsova has not presented the court with any evidence to prove that ... the statement was true or with proof that the truthfulness of the statement was checked [prior to publication]. ... L.K. has argued before the court that she ... is a civil servant who discharges her duties in good faith and that publication in the media ... of the statement that she had committed a ... crime caused her distress, on the basis of which the court concludes that L.K.’s claims for non-pecuniary damages should be granted.”
21.  The applicant and N. both appealed. The applicant argued, among other things, that the amount of the award had been excessive considering that her monthly pension was only RUB 2,600.
22.  On 20 July 2006 the Regional Court upheld the Town Court’s judgment on appeal. In a very succinct judgment, it dismissed the defendants’ arguments as follows:
“Given that the [first-instance] court has correctly determined the legally relevant circumstances and properly assessed the evidence, its judgment is lawful and well‑founded.
The arguments [contained in] the statements of appeal are aimed at a reassessment of the evidence and do not contain circumstances that would refute the findings of the [first-instance] court and require additional examination.”
23.   N. stood for office as mayor of Fryazino in elections scheduled for 4 September 2005. He paid from his election fund to have an appeal addressed to President Putin published in the newspaper, which was signed “N., a candidate for the office of mayor”. The newspaper published the appeal in issue 32 (244) of 17-23 August 2005 under the headline “Approaching the elections. Introducing the candidates for the office of mayor of Fryazino”, mentioning specifically that the article had been paid for from N.’s election campaign funds.
24.  The article criticised a local entrepreneur, G.A., one of N.’s opponents in the campaign, and suggested that the authorities should investigate his business activities. The article read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“... One of the covert heads of the limited liability company Roads of the XXI Century, who is also the head of the Prince Casino, a certain G.A., who is in direct contact with the mayor of Fryazino, U., and connected to him by a dubious financial relationship linked to the construction of housing and commercial car parks in Fryazino, arranged for a criminal case opened against U. to be terminated. Meanwhile, in conversation with me, G.A. was open about the fact that he had personally paid ‘werewolves in epaulettes’ [corrupt policemen] one million U.S. dollars!!!
In reply to my question as to where he had got such a huge [amount of] money, G.A. said he was a ‘person of immense authority’ in Fryazino and the Shchelkovo district, who had judges, prosecutors and tax officers ‘in his pay’...
In addition, G.A. informed me that in the near future he would be working in the Fryazino town administration as chairman of the Council of Deputies – [that he would be] controlling and distributing the funds belonging to ... Fryazino to ‘his own companies’, and, first and foremost, to Roads of the XXI Century. ...
... that very G.A. who paid one million U.S. dollars!!! to ‘werewolves in epaulettes’ to terminate the criminal case [instituted] against U. under three provisions of the Criminal Code in respect of ten [criminal] episodes and who intends in the near future to control and distribute cash belonging to ... Fryazino to companies loyal to him! ...
It turned out that, in violation of ... the law on the main guarantees of election rights ..., the campaign material was not paid for from G.A.’s campaign funds, but [from the assets of] the very same company, Roads of the XXI Century!!! ...
... despite being near to the town administration building, G.A. pounced on me, punched me in the chest, and threatened to kill me and my family and shoot my guards. He also said he regretted the fact that he had not been able to organise that crime properly in December 2004 during an attempt on my life.
 On top of that, G.A. told me that he would shoot all businessmen who were out of favour with him and his construction business partner, K. (of Roads of the XXI Century), and [the mayor] U. G.A.’s promise to shoot businessmen was proved true that day. On the evening of 13 August 2005 Ch., who had had a long-standing dispute with Roads of the XXI Century, G.A. and U., was shot in the head and killed ...”
25.  On 22 August 2005 the territorial electoral commission brought a claim in the Town Court against N., alleging that the newspaper article had not complied with election campaign rules and had been an abuse of press freedom.
26.  On 27 August 2005 the Town Court found for N. and stated that the impugned publication had been paid campaign material and as such had complied with the relevant regulations.
27.  Both N. and G.A. lost the mayoral election.
28.  On an unspecified date in 2006 G.A. brought defamation proceedings against the applicant and N. in connection with the publication of N.’s open appeal to President Putin.
29.  On 16 May 2006 the Town Court found against the applicant and N. It did not examine whether the impugned information had consisted of statements of fact or value judgments, nor did it provide reasons for holding the applicant liable for publishing the impugned article. The Town Court ordered the newspaper to retract the statements and awarded G.A. non‑pecuniary damages, of which RUB 10,000 in particular were to be recovered from the applicant.
30.  The applicant appealed arguing, in particular, that the amount of damages was excessive and disproportionate in view of her small pension and that the Town Court had failed to properly examine the evidence she had submitted to prove the impugned information.
31.  On 2 August 2006 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal. It found, in particular, as follows:
“The [first-instance] court found that N.’s statements in the published material could and should have been checked as to their truthfulness, that ... [they] are not truthful, tarnish G.A.’s honour, dignity and business reputation, which has caused him emotional suffering.
The court also correctly found that the defendants’ ... argument that the publication ... had been permissible in the course of an election campaign ... was ill-founded. ... The court lawfully found that there were no grounds to relieve N. and Ms Cheltsova of liability for the dissemination of untruthful statements tarnishing [the reputation of] G.A. and that the defendants had not proven the truthfulness of the statements they had disseminated, which the appellate court agrees with. The fact of dissemination of harmful statements was established by the court, which took into account the newspaper’s circulation of 3,000 copies in the course of the election campaign.”