4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow. From 1995 until his retirement on 21 August 2006 he was a prosecutor of the North-Western District of Moscow. 5.  On 29 May 2007 the Moscow city public prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the recent activities of a group of former and acting law-enforcement officers and officials. 6.  On 24 April 2008 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody pending investigation and trial (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012). 7.  On 23 July 2009 the prosecutor completed the investigation in respect of fifteen suspects, including the applicant, and transferred the case to the Moscow City Court. 8.  On 5 August the City Court held a preliminary hearing and decided not to allow access to the public for hearings of the criminal case. In particular, the court held as follows:
“[The court] will examine the present case in camera. The case file contains information classified as state secrets and the disclosure of this information might have a serious adverse effect on the interests of society and the State.” 9.  On 24 May 2010 the jury delivered a guilty verdict in the applicant’s case. 10.  On 9 June 2010 the City Court sentenced the applicant to nine years’ imprisonment and a fine in the amount of 500,000 roubles (RUB). The applicant appealed, complaining in particular about the lack of a public hearing. 11.  On 16 November 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held an appeal hearing. The court heard the prosecutor, the civil party, the defendants, including the applicant, and their counsel. The court upheld, in substance, and reduced the applicant’s sentence to eight years’ imprisonment. As regards the applicant’s complaint about the lack of public hearing, the court stated as follows:
“... the [trial] court justified its decision to hear the case in camera. The case file contains documents constituting State secrets and the disclosure of such information might entail a serious violation of the [interests] of society and the State.” 12.  On 10 September 2009 the main national television channel broadcast a programme on the circumstances of the criminal case against the applicant. The presenter stated that the applicant, a former district prosecutor, lived on unearned income and that the value of his assets significantly exceeded his revenues. He further claimed that the value of the applicant’s house was 2 million United States dollars (USD). The programme featured footage of the applicant’s two-storey house and its interior and the tax declarations of the applicant and the members of his family. A photograph of the applicant in his prosecutor’s uniform was also shown. 13.  On an unspecified date the applicant and his wife brought a civil action for damages against the television channel, arguing, inter alia, that the respondent company had failed to obtain their consent for disclosure of their personal data, including the tax information and the footage of their house and its interior. 14.  On 18 May 2010 the Ostankinskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. In particular, the court ruled:
“The mass media have repeatedly reported, and continue to report, on the financial situation and revenues of high-ranking officials. Accordingly, the court considers it possible to refer to the case-law of the [European Court of Human Rights] and notes, in particular, that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. [The court referred to Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (26 April 1995, Series A no. 313).]
Regard being had to the above, the court accepts that the exact value of the house owned by the plaintiffs, the exact amount of their incomes and the exact amount of their real property, in the circumstances of the case, are immaterial. The most important issue is that the value of their house does not correspond to their income.
... According to the investment agreement ... the value of the house was estimated at ... USD 60,000 ..., which did not include the cost of the interior, including the installation of a winding staircase and a jacuzzi ... [One of the plaintiffs’ witnesses] submitted that [the applicant] had been offered a reduced price for the house because of his friendship with the management of the construction company ... [The court] finds it incompatible with the standing of the prosecutor. [The court] further takes into account that the plaintiffs had their title to the house registered on the basis of the purchase agreement ... Accordingly, in addition to the amount paid under the investment agreement ... the plaintiffs paid a significant sum of money which exceeded their income ... and the amount they received when they sold their three‑roomed flat ... for the equivalent of USD 50,000 ...
... Pursuant to [the Russian Federal Law on the Mass Media], a journalist must obtain consent for the disclosure of information concerning a person’s private life from that person or his representative, except when such disclosure is necessary for the protection of public interests. [The court] considers that this rule applied when [the journalist] disclosed information concerning the income of the prosecutor’s family. This is justified by the public interest. The question raised in the programme about the public servant’s income and the value of his property is a matter of public interest.
The Court considers that [the applicant’s] claims that the respondent party should retract the information presented in the TV show that [the applicant] was involved in criminal activities and had received unlawfully from an entrepreneur USD 500,000 should also be dismissed.
...
... [the journalist] presented in the show evidence contained in the criminal case file, including a certificate showing the plaintiffs’ revenues, video footage featuring the plaintiffs’ house, and excerpts from their telephone conversations. The journalist obtained those materials lawfully, with the investigator’s approval. The journalist assessed that evidence. The veracity of his assessment cannot be subject to verification given that such verification should be carried out [in the course of the criminal investigation].
... According to Ms Samoylova (the applicant’s wife and a plaintiff), the Moscow City Court is examining a criminal case against [the applicant] ... [The court considers] that the journalist presented to the public his opinion that there is evidence confirming that [the applicant] is implicated in the commission of the offences he is charged with; [the journalist] commented on the criminal investigation, showed evidence collected and assessed it.
...
... The court considers that [the journalist] produced evidence confirming his statements about the [applicant’s] involvement in illegal activities and dismisses the plaintiffs’ claims.” 15.  On 20 December 2010 the City Court upheld the judgment of 18 May 2010 on appeal.