Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 21 January 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 64140/17
Tatyana Leonidovna TURI
against Russia
lodged on 25 August 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Tatyana Leonidovna Turi, is a Russian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is an employee of the Moscow Metro. On 7 March 2016 at about 8 a.m., after having finished her night shift as a station master-on-duty, the applicant gave an interview to the TV channel “Life News”. The interview touched upon the Moscow Metro’s operating activities. On 6 April 2016 her employer issued her with a reprimand on the grounds that, according to internal discipline rules, metro personnel are prohibited from direct communication with press without coordination with the employer’s press service.
The applicant challenged her reprimanding before a court. She argued, in particular, that her constitutional right to freedom of expression had been breached because the interview had been given outside of her working hours. The applicant also allegedly claimed before the court that the prohibition of direct communication with press was by itself a breach of the right to freedom of expression. She finally asserted that she had never had access to any confidential information of the employer.
On 27 September 2016 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims. The District Court found that the applicant had been aware about the internal discipline rules regarding communication with the press, but still gave the interview. It, thus, concluded that the reprimand had been issued lawfully. The District Court further mentioned that the internal discipline rules did not limit the applicant’s freedom of expression, but set a procedure of its realisation.
On 10 March 2017 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. In her cassation complaints the applicant also argued that the internal rule prohibiting her direct communication with press had breached her freedom of expression guaranteed by the Russian Constitution and Article 10 of the Convention. On 31 May and 12 July 2017 the applicant’s cassation complaints were rejected.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the national courts failed to protect her right to freedom of expression.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
In particular, did the national courts assess the “proportionality” and “necessity in a democratic society” of the interference in the present case? (see, for instance, Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, 29 March 2016)?
Leave a Reply