5.  The applicant company publishes a weekly newspaper Ivanovo-Press. The two individual applicants are journalists writing for the newspaper. 6.  On 12 August 2003 the Ivanovo-press newspaper published in issue no. 32 an article by Ms L. headlined “You can see it – and you can have it” («И око видит, и зуб ймет») about a conflict between Mr K., director of the local State gas-supply company “Rodnikiraygas”, and his neighbours, the S. family. The article had the following subtitles: “The Director of Rodnikiraygas has declared war on a poverty-stricken family, not a single member of which is healthy”, “Boss in Law”, “Gas Racket”. It also stated that Mr K. had “ordered that the S. family not be supplied with gas”, and that “even when all the notified defects had been eradicated ... [Mr K.] did not lift the unofficial ban”. Finally, in the article Mr K. was described as “a parochial boss”. 7.  Mr K. instituted defamation proceedings before the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo against the applicant company and Ms L. He requested the court to order a rectification of the above statements, all the subtitles and the headline of the article. 8.  On 18 December 2003 the District Court found in part against the applicant company. In particular, it established that the S. family had not been supplied with gas on account of defects in their compressed gas equipment, and that the gas supply had been restored as soon as these defects were rectified. Thus, the statements that Mr K. had “ordered that the S. family not be supplied with gas”, and that “even when all the notified defects had been eradicated ... [Mr K.] did not lift the unofficial ban” were untrue. 9.  With regard to the subtitle “The Director of Rodnikiraygas has declared war on a poverty-stricken family ...” the District Court found that “the fact that Mr K. [had] lodged a civil claim against Ms S. does not constitute evidence of a declaration of war”, and the plaintiff’s claim in this part was allowed. 10.  The District Court further rejected the defendant’s argument that the subtitles “Boss in Law” and “Gas Racket” were value-judgments, not susceptible of proof. It stated that the expression “boss in law” («начальник в законе») was analogous to the Russian slang expression “thief in law” and could not have any other meaning. The word “racket” («рэкет») meant an outrageous extortion, and, used together with the word “gas” in a subtitle to the article about Mr K., who was the director of a gas supply company, implied, in the court’s view, that the plaintiff was extorting a property by threats and blackmail. 11.  The court rejected the remainder of the claim, finding that the headline of the article was merely a rephrased Russian proverb which did not contain any information about Mr K. It found that the expression “a parochial boss” could not be regarded as defamatory. 12.  The court held the applicant company liable to pay 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation to Mr K. and RUB 515 in legal aid. 13.  On 17 March 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld that judgment in a summary fashion. 14.  In 2003, a series of articles critical of Mr V., who was the head of the Ivanovo Regional Highways Department and of the Executive Committee of the Ivanovo Regional Branch of the United Russia party, appeared in the Ivanovo-Press newspaper. 15.  On 15 July 2003 the newspaper published an interview with Mr Ku., the former general director of a public company. Mr Ku. stated that in 1996 Mr V. had tricked him into signing a contract with a private company which had subsequently defaulted on its obligations. Mr Ku. stated in particular that Mr V. “was capable of violating moral principles for the sake of money and [his] career”. 16.  On 29 July 2003 the newspaper published an article under the headline “V. wants a market, WE NEED VICTORY Sq.” («В-у нужен базар, НАМ – пл. ПОБЕДЫ») followed by a subheading “The head of the Executive Committee of the Ivanovo Regional Branch of the United Russia party, V., is ready to convert Victory Square into a market place”. The article criticised the authorities’ neglectful attitude towards the veterans of the Second World War, as exemplified by the attempts of some officials to build a shopping centre and car park in Victory Square. The article continued as follows:
“Cynically, loudly, shamelessly and in disregard of public opinion, Mr V., the head of [the Ivanovo Regional Highways Department] and of the Executive Committee of the Ivanovo Regional Branch of the United Russia Party, has been lobbying town officials for the building of a shopping centre, parking places, etc. in one of the town’s central squares (Victory Square, the name so dear to the majority of its inhabitants) ...
For the sake of transient personal interests of gluttonous nouveaux riches some officials from the town administration are ready to sacrifice (supposedly for a fee) the glory and pride of generations and to devalue and belittle such notions as ‘Patriotism’, ‘Victory’ and ‘Faith’. Mr V.’s unscrupulousness, the dubious origins of his wealth and financial resources, and his readiness to transgress all moral laws to secure his wealth have been known for a long time. His attempts to persuade the town administration to build a shopping centre in the central square seem even more suspicious ... People like V. have so far created nothing, done nothing for their fellow townsmen. Not only that, the activity of the above-mentioned official has brought nothing but harm. He worked in the position of general director of the Polet company and the company lost eighteen billion [Russian roubles]. He became the head of [the Ivanovo Regional Highways Department] and got money for serious commercial projects ... The leaders of [the United Russia party] (V. is one of them) lack wisdom, will, aspiration to promote unity in society by renouncing, at least temporarily, their ambitions and passion for wealth ...” (underlining added, see below). 17.  Mr V. sued the applicant company and the author of the article in defamation before the Leninskiy District Court. Considering that the article’s headline, subheading and the extracts underlined above were untrue and damaging to his dignity and professional reputation, he sought rectification. 18.  The applicant company maintained that all the statements of fact contained in the article were true as proved by witness testimony. The other statements were value judgements and could not be proved. 19.  On 23 December 2003 the District Court granted Mr V.’s action in part. It found that the underlined extracts were damaging to Mr V.’s honour, dignity and reputation as they contained allegations that Mr V. had breached moral and ethical norms, had behaved unscrupulously, cynically and in disregard of public opinion, and that his activity had been harmful. The defendants had not proved the veracity of those statements. 20.  In respect of Mr V.’s allegedly dishonest dealings with Mr Ku.’s public company, the District Court found that the testimony of Mr Ku., who was hostile towards Mr V., was insufficient to prove the truthfulness of the allegation that Mr V. had acted unscrupulously in that matter or that his activity had been harmful. 21.  With regard to Mr V.’s alleged intention to convert Victory Square into a market place, the District Court noted that the fact that he had repeatedly attempted to obtain building permission had been confirmed by Mr G.’s testimony. However, no evidence had been adduced to suggest that he had done so cynically or in disregard of public opinion. 22.  The District Court accordingly found that the underlined extracts were untrue, damaging to Mr V.’s honour, dignity and professional reputation and were liable to rectification. It accepted, however, that the statements which are not underlined were the author’s subjective opinion and not susceptible of proof. 23.  Both the applicant company and Mr V. appealed. 24.  On 17 March 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld part of the judgment and quashed the remainder. The Regional Court agreed with the District Court’s findings that the underlined statements were untrue and damaging to the plaintiff’s honour and reputation. The Regional Court noted in addition:
“The defendants failed to prove the truthfulness of their allegation that V. had lobbied for the development of Victory Square. The testimony by witness G[.] that the plaintiff had twice discussed with him the issue of building a car park in front of the Polet company does not confirm [the truthfulness of that allegation]. Judging by the meaning of the word ‘to lobby’ (to apply pressure in order to obtain a certain decision), an application to a competent official cannot be regarded as lobbying for the building of a shopping centre in Victory Square.”
Accordingly, the Regional Court upheld the part of the judgment concerning the underlined statements. That part of the judgment became final. 25.  It quashed the part of the judgment concerning the statements which are not underlined and remitted the case to the Leninskiy District Court for re-examination for the following reasons:
“The court considers that the arguments by the plaintiff’s counsel about the defamatory character of the phrase ‘V. wants a market, WE WANT VICTORY Sq.’ and other phrases are well-founded. These phrases contain statements about the facts which have allegedly taken place: ‘attempted to persuade’, ‘is ready to convert the square’, ‘V. wants a market’. In these circumstances the court cannot agree with the [District] Court’s finding that these statements are value judgements of the author of the publication.” 26.  On 13 April 2004 the Leninskiy District Court re-examined the outstanding part of the case. If found that the headline and subheading of the article and the statement that “his attempts to persuade the town administration to build a shopping centre in the central square seem ... more suspicious” were damaging to Mr V.’s honour, dignity and professional reputation as they contained allegations that he had breached moral and ethical norms and had belittled the memory of the veterans of the Second World War. 27.  Mr V. then sued the applicant company and Ms L. for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs. On 16 June 2004 the Leninskiy District Court allowed the claims in part and ordered the applicant company to pay Mr V. RUB 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus legal costs. On 26 July 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. 28.  On 11 January 2005 the Ivanovo-Press newspaper printed an article by the applicant Mr Smetanin under the headline “Five pairs of underwear for three years” («Пять трусов на три года»). He expressed his dissatisfaction with the existing level of salaries and social security in the Ivanovo Region and precariousness of the job market. The applicant criticised the governor of the Ivanovo Region for a lack of attention to those issues, writing as follows:
“In the meantime, at the children’s new year party the governor talked about his cherished dream to find a life companion in 2005. He does not think about the people but solely about himself. He was married twice and is now searching yet again. The entire region is gossiping about him and Ms D. but he does not care. He continues to turn us into zombies ...
When electing him, [we] expected that a Communist would care about the people. But he turned out to be a simple demagogue! ...
The governor now claims that he is certain to be re-appointed for a second term with a probability of 67 per cent. Did you ask the people’s opinion? The people have faith in the president but, in my view, if he decides to re-appoint the individuals who brought discredit upon themselves, the residents of the Ivanovo region would not appreciate it!” 29.  The article was accompanied by a photograph showing two men, one of whom appears to be the governor of the Ivanovo Region. The photograph carried the following caption: “In my view, these men do not give a damn about anyone as long as [their] pockets are full of money and [they have] a cute babe close by.” 30.  The governor Mr T. and the deputy head of the governor’s administration Ms D. sued the first and second applicants for defamation. They claimed that the above-cited extracts and the caption under the photograph damaged their dignity, honour and reputation. 31.  On 31 March 2005 the Leninskiy District Court gave judgment and granted the claim in part. 32.  The District Court found, firstly, that the applicants failed to prove the allegation that the governor was an individual who “brought discredit upon [himself]”. It held as follows:
“The respondents did not produce any evidence showing the veracity of the said statements. A copy of the Ivanovskaya Zemlya newspaper of 17 March 2005, in which the campaign ‘For the Ivanovo Region without [governor] T.!’ was launched and the signatures collected against the re-appointment of Mr T. for a second term may not be such evidence, similarly to any other newspaper publications. The veracity of the statements printed in the newspaper and participation of the listed organisation in the campaign has not been established by anyone. The publication in the Ivanovskaya Zemlya newspaper of 17 March 2005 only demonstrates the existence of political struggle for the governor’s position.” 33.  The District Court further considered that the extract concerning the governor’s personal relationships – starting from “He does not think ...” and to the end of the paragraph – contained the assertions that he had favoured his private life to the detriment of the social and economic development of the region, neglected his professional duties, engaged in an extra-marital relationship with Ms D. and also attempted to turn the people of the region into “zombies”. The District Court pointed out that the applicants failed to produce any evidence in support of those allegations which were damaging to the reputation of both the governor and Ms D. 34.  Referring to Resolution no. 3 of the Plenary Supreme Court (cited in paragraph 54 below), the District Court also found that the caption of the photograph was not actionable in defamation because it expressed the author’s personal opinion and because it did not refer directly to Ms D. 35.  The District Court held that the applicant company should pay RUB 20,000 to the governor and RUB 15,000 to Ms D. and the applicant Mr Smetanin RUB 5,000 and RUB 3,000, respectively. It also ordered publication of the entire judgment by way of rectification. 36.  On 11 May 2005 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, in a summary fashion. 37.  Between September 2004 and January 2005 the Ivanovo-Press newspaper published a series of articles which criticised the management of the Ivanovo Regional Social Security Fund by its director Ms S. In connection with those publications Ms S. lodged two defamation claims before the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo. 38.  On 4 March 2005 the Leninskiy District Court issued judgment in the first defamation claim, in which the applicant company and the applicant Mr Smetanin were the defendants. 39.  The District Court found, firstly, that the headline of the article by the applicant Mr Smetanin entitled “Shady organisations stand up for S.” («За С-ву заступаются теневые структуры») printed in issue no. 39 of 28 September 2004, was damaging for her reputation. The article concerned a visit that the director of the Zabota foundation Mr L. had paid to the newspaper’s office to express his discontent about the negative coverage of Ms S.’s activities in previous publications. Examined in the witness stand, Mr L. testified that the Zabota foundation had been set up to assist orphaned children, the disabled and rehabilitated criminals and that one half of the foundation’s employees were former convicts. He stated that he had had professional contacts with Ms S. and had sought her assistance in obtaining holiday vouchers for orphaned children. Exasperated by the aspersions the newspaper had cast on Ms S., he had come to the office and had spoken to the editor-in-chief. The District Court determined that, in the absence of any evidence of the Zabota foundation’s involvement in criminal or illegal activities, the allegation contained in the article’s headline was untrue. 40.  Secondly, the District Court considered the assertions made by the applicant Mr Smetanin in the article “Sports, children’s holidays and corruption” («Спорт, детский отдых и коррупция») printed in issue no. 40 of 5 October 2004. The article alleged in particular that Ms S. had “earned a fortune by simply siphoning off a large part of funds through an acquaintance of hers” and that “for a long time those amounts [had been] used to feed bandits and double-faced policemen who cover[ed] up for her”. The District Court examined Ms U., who was Ms S.’s “acquaintance” mentioned in the article, and two employees of the social-security fund, but found no evidence of any misappropriations or unlawful transfer of funds. Accordingly, it concluded that the allegations were untrue and damaging for Ms S.’s reputation. 41.  Thirdly, the District Court examined two extracts from an article by the applicant Mr Smetanin published in issue no. 42 of 19 October 2004 and found as follows:
“The assertions that S. had made fun of [President] Putin and that S. hides her real face from public are also damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation ...
The sentence ‘T. S. hides her real face from the public’ contains in fact an assertion that the plaintiff is double-faced and has a different, genuine face which she hides from the public. This conclusion finds corroboration in the submissions by the representative of the defendants who stated in court that the purpose of that figure of speech was to inform the readers that there were not just positive but also negative aspects to the plaintiff’s reputation. According to [the authoritative dictionary of Russian language], the word ‘two-faced’ means something that presents two contradictory aspects, hypocritical, insincere. No evidence showing the veracity of those statements was submitted to the court. The prosecutor’s office discontinued criminal case no. 3025 against Ms S. for lack of indications of the criminal offences under Article 285 and 160 of the Criminal Code. The reports by [the auditing authorities] do not contain any such evidence, either.
According to the same dictionary, the expression ‘make fun’ of someone (the same as ‘laugh at’) means to ridicule or scorn something or somebody; the article concerns the disrespect of legal requirements and incompliance with the Presidential Decree [which required State officials to render assistance to journalists in obtaining exact and truthful information]. ... The plaintiff clarified in court that her refusal to give out information about the employees of the social security fund had been prompted by written petitions from the fund employees who had objected to having the information on their place of work released to the media. For that reason [the court considers that] the refusal to communicate such information to the media does not demonstrate that Ms S. had made fun of the President of the Russian Federation.” 42.  The District Court awarded Ms S. RUB 20,000 from the applicant company and RUB 3,000 from the applicant Mr Smetanin in respect of non-pecuniary damages, RUB 2,500 and RUB 1,000 respectively for legal fees, and RUB 30 and RUB 10 respectively for court fees. 43.  On 6 April 2005 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the judgment in a summary fashion. 44.  On 11 May 2005 the Leninskiy District Court gave judgment in a second defamation claim lodged by Ms S. against the applicant company, Mr Smetanin and Mr Ovchinnikov. 45.  Analysing the article by the individual applicants which appeared in issue no. 48 of 30 November 2004 under the headline “S. is cheating ...” («С-ва обманывает»), the District Court determined that the headline itself did not contain information about concrete facts or events because it did not specify “what the nature of the cheating had been and whom and when the plaintiff had cheated”. 46.  The District Court further examined the following extract from the same article:
“... in 2002, the regional control and audit department checked the accounts of the fund relating to the organisation of summer holidays and discovered an overexpenditure of 11 million roubles. We think that such a considerable amount was transferred by Ms S.’s fund to Ms U[.]’s company. According to our sources, the law-enforcement authorities took an interest in that transaction, but someone quickly cooled their interest down.” 47.  The District Court considered that the sentence about the transfer of a large amount of money to Ms U.’s company was not actionable in defamation since it was phrased as the authors’ supposition. On the other hand, it held that the final sentence about the sudden loss of interest by the law-enforcement authorities was damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation as it contained “an assertion of Ms S.’s involvement in unlawful distribution of the assets of the social-security fund”. 48.  In respect of the article entitled “S.’s case” («Дело С-вой») in issue no. 1 of 11 January 2005, the District Court found that it contained untruthful and damaging allegations that Ms S. had renovated her flat at the expense of the social-security fund and that she had lent the fund’s money to private companies almost for free. 49.  The final element of the defamation claim was the article which appeared in issue no. 4 of 1 February 2005. It concerned a possible replacement of Ms S. as the director of the Ivanovo social-security fund with another person and contained the following statement:
“This fact cannot give rise to optimism because, instead of one dubious individual with a criminal past, the fund will be managed by another individual who, in our opinion, should have no place in the executive power.”
In respect of this sentence the District Court found as follows:
“There is no doubt that the sentence contains an allegation of the plaintiff’s criminal past ... whereas the defendants did not produce evidence of any such past. The fact that a criminal case was opened against Ms S. cannot attest to her criminal past as it was subsequently discontinued for lack of indications of a criminal offence. There is no doubt that the allegation of criminal past is damaging to her honour, dignity and reputation. At the same time, the adjective ‘dubious’... is a value-judgment which does not contain any statement of fact and is not amenable to rectification.” 50.  The District Court awarded Ms S. RUB 20,000 from the applicant company and RUB 5,000 from each of the individual applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damages, RUB 2,000 and RUB 500 respectively for legal fees, and RUB 200 and RUB 50 respectively for court fees. 51.  On 15 June 2005 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, in a summary fashion.