{"id":17517,"date":"2021-12-07T10:23:00","date_gmt":"2021-12-07T10:23:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17517"},"modified":"2021-12-07T10:23:00","modified_gmt":"2021-12-07T10:23:00","slug":"case-of-pronyakin-and-others-v-russia-european-court-of-human-rights-74389-10-and-2-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17517","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF PRONYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 74389\/10 and 2 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF PRONYAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 74389\/10 and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 December 2021<\/p>\n

\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Pronyakin and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, President,
\nDarian Pavli,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having regard to:<\/p>\n

the applications (nos.\u00a074389\/10 and 2 others) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by three Russian nationals (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;<\/p>\n

the decisions to give notice to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) of the complaints concerning Article 10 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;<\/p>\n

the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n

the decision to reject the Government\u2019s objection to examination of the applications by a Committee;<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2021,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

subject-matter of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The three applicants are journalists; Mr Pronyakin is also the owner of a Debri\u2011DV website that serves as an Internet archive. The applicants complained before the Court that the domestic courts examining civil defamation claims brought against them by several office holders had amounted to a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression. The common facts of the applications, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Specific details as regards each application appear in Appendix II below.<\/p>\n

2. In 2007-11, the applicants wrote or published online four articles. Public figures mentioned in the publications considered that certain statements had tarnished their honour, dignity, reputation, and business reputation and brought civil defamation claims before the domestic courts (six sets in total).<\/p>\n

3. The domestic courts in each of the six sets of defamation proceedings found for the claimant, ordered a retraction of the impugned statements and awarded compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage to be paid by the applicants. In doing so, they limited themselves to establishing three elements: (i)\u00a0whether the defendants had disseminated impugned statements; (ii)\u00a0whether the statements had been of tarnishing nature; and (iii)\u00a0whether the statements had been untruthful.<\/p>\n

the court\u2019s assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

5. The applicants\u2019 complaints that the domestic courts\u2019 judgments in defamation proceedings against them had resulted in a violation of Article\u00a010 are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article\u00a035 of the Convention. The applications must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

6. It is not in dispute between the parties that each of the six sets of civil defamation proceedings complained of amounted to an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression, as well as that each instance of the interference was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d and pursued a legitimate aim of \u201cthe protection of the reputation … of others\u201d. It remains to be established whether they were \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d (see Satakunnan Markkinap\u00f6rssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931\/13, \u00a7\u00a0160, 27\u00a0June 2017).<\/p>\n

7. The relevant general principles of the Court\u2019s case-law have been summarised in B\u00e9dat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 48-54, 29\u00a0March 2016).<\/p>\n

8. When examining the defamation claims against the applicants brought by public figures (see Appendix II below for details), the domestic courts limited themselves to establishing three elements only (see paragraph\u00a03 above). The domestic courts did not assess whether the impugned statements represented value judgments not susceptible of truth rather than statements of fact (see Cump\u01cen\u01ce and Maz\u01cere v. Romania [GC], no.\u00a033348\/96, \u00a7\u00a096, ECHR 2004\u2011XI, and Tolmachev v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a042182\/11, \u00a7\u00a050, 2 June 2020), or whether such statements should be seen in the context of the claimants\u2019 position as public figures open to close scrutiny of word and deed by both journalists and the public at large (see Jerusalem v. Austria, no.\u00a026958\/95, \u00a7\u00a038, ECHR\u00a02001\u2011II, and Redaktsiya Gazety Zemlyaki v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a016224\/05, \u00a7\u00a042, 21 November 2017), or whether the publications had touched upon a matter of public interest (see S\u00fcrek v.\u00a0Turkey (no.\u00a01) [GC], no. 26682\/95, \u00a7\u00a061, ECHR\u00a01999\u2011IV, and Fedchenko v.\u00a0Russia (no.\u00a03), no.\u00a07972\/09, \u00a7\u00a047, 2\u00a0October 2018), or whether they had emanated from third parties (see Jersild v.\u00a0Denmark, 23 September 1994, \u00a7\u00a035, Series\u00a0A no.\u00a0298, and Nadtoka v.\u00a0Russia (no. 2), no. 29097\/08, \u00a7\u00a048, 8 October 2019)). The domestic courts appear to have acted on the assumption that the claimants\u2019 respective interests in protecting their reputation prevailed over the defendants\u2019 interest in informing the public, thus failing to strike a fair balance when protecting the two competing values guaranteed by the Convention (see Skudayeva v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a024014\/07, \u00a7\u00a046, 5 March 2019). Moreover, they did not consider the defendants\u2019 financial situation at all when making awards to be paid to the claimants (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v.\u00a0the\u00a0United Kingdom, 13\u00a0July 1995, \u00a7\u00a049, Series A no.\u00a0316\u2011B, and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a046232\/10 et 74770\/10, \u00a7\u00a070, 8 September 2020). Lastly, in the proceedings against Mr Lobanov, the domestic courts failed to take into account the Court\u2019s position that Article\u00a08 cannot be relied on in order to complain of a loss of reputation which is the foreseeable consequence of one\u2019s own actions, such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no.\u00a039954\/08, \u00a7\u00a083, 7\u00a0February 2012, and Sidabras and D\u017eiautas v.\u00a0Lithuania, nos.\u00a055480\/00 and 59330\/00, \u00a7 49, ECHR\u00a02004\u2011VIII).<\/p>\n

9. The Court has previously found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in a large number of cases concerning freedom of the media in Russia for the reason that the domestic courts had failed to apply the Convention standards when deciding on a defamation dispute (see, among many others, OOO\u00a0Ivpress and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a033501\/04 and 3\u00a0others, \u00a7 79, 22\u00a0January 2013; Kunitsyna v. Russia, no.\u00a09406\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a046-48, 13\u00a0December 2016; Terentyev v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a025147\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a022-24, 26\u00a0January 2017; OOO\u00a0Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad v. Russia, no.\u00a039748\/05, \u00a7\u00a046, 25\u00a0April 2017; Skudayeva, cited above, \u00a7\u00a039; Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a04097\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a066\u201173, 2 July 2019; Tolmachev, cited above, \u00a7\u00a047; and Rashkin v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a069575\/10, \u00a7\u00a018, 7\u00a0July 2020).<\/p>\n

10. Having carefully examined the case materials and the parties\u2019 submissions before it, the Court concludes that the domestic courts did not give due consideration to the principles and criteria as laid down by the Court\u2019s case\u2011law for balancing the right to respect for private life and the right to freedom of expression. They thus exceeded the margin of appreciation afforded to them and failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the instances of interference in question and the legitimate aim pursued (see, with further references, Tolmachev, cited above, \u00a7 56, and Timakov and OOO ID Rubezh, cited above, \u00a7 71). Nothing in the Government\u2019s submissions indicates otherwise. It thus has not been shown that\u00a0the instances of interference with the journalists\u2019 freedom of expression were \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n

11. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a010 of the Convention in respect of each applicant and on the account of each set of defamation proceedings complained of.<\/p>\n

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

12. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

13. The applicants claimed the amounts indicated in Appendix III below.<\/p>\n

14. The Government considered the amounts claimed excessive.<\/p>\n

15. The Court awards the applicants the amounts indicated in Appendix\u00a0III below, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the applicants.<\/p>\n

16. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of each applicant;<\/p>\n

4. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 December 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Olga Chernishova\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mar\u00eda El\u00f3segui
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

___________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX I: LIST OF APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/td>\nCase name<\/strong><\/td>\nLodged on<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant
\nYear of Birth
\nPlace of Residence
\nNationality<\/strong><\/td>\n		Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n74389\/10<\/td>\nPronyakin v. Russia<\/td>\n29\/11\/2010<\/td>\nKonstantin Anatolyevich PRONYAKIN<\/strong>
\n1977
\nKhabarovsk
\nRussian<\/td>\n		Karinna Akopovna MOSKALENKO<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n12562\/11<\/td>\nLobanov v. Russia<\/td>\n09\/02\/2011<\/td>\nMikhail Dmitriyevich LOBANOV<\/strong>
\n1959
\nPerm
\nRussian<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n15503\/13<\/td>\nKharitonova v.\u00a0Russia<\/td>\n11\/02\/2013<\/td>\nIrina Yuryevna KHARITONOVA<\/strong>
\n1957
\nKhabarovsk
\nRussian<\/td>\n		Karinna Akopovna MOSKALENKO<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

APPENDIX II: FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/td>\nImpugned publication(s)<\/strong><\/td>\nClaimant(s)<\/strong><\/td>\nGrounds advanced in the statement of defamation claims<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicants\u2019 arguments before domestic courts<\/strong><\/td>\nDomestic courts and dates of their judgments<\/strong><\/td>\nReasons to find for claimant(s)<\/strong><\/td>\nAward to the claimant(s)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1<\/td>\n74389\/10*<\/td>\nTwo articles written by third parties and originally published on third websites in December 2009, the copies of which the applicant had published on the Debri\u2011DV website.<\/td>\nMr B.R., member of the Russian State Duma<\/td>\nThe articles tarnished Mr\u00a0B.R.\u2019s honour, dignity, and business reputation of an honorary citizen of Khabarovsk.<\/td>\nMr Pronyakin had not written the impugned articles; the authorship and the original sources of publication had been clearly marked on the applicant\u2019s website.<\/td>\nFirst instance: Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Khabarovsk, 09\/10\/2010.<\/p>\n

Appeal: Khabarovsk Regional Court, 01\/09\/2010.<\/td>\n

The disseminated statements were untrue and tarnished the claimant\u2019s reputation. That the defendant was not the author of the articles was irrelevant as he had disseminated them on his website. When determining the amount of compensation, the first-instance court emphasised \u201cthe high status of the claimant in society\u201d. The appeal court upheld its judgment in its entirety.<\/td>\nA retraction and compensation of non\u2011pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n

Russian roubles 300,000 (RUB)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/td>\nSupervisory review: Presidium of the Khabarovsk Regional Court, 15\/11\/2010<\/td>\nThe reference to \u201cthe high status of the claimant in society\u201d was deleted as incompatible with the Constitutional principle of equality before the law.<\/td>\nA retraction and compensation of non\u2011pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n

RUB\u00a070,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2<\/td>\n12562\/11<\/td>\nAn article written by Mr\u00a0Lobanov and published on 18\/05\/2007 in the Permskiye Novosti<\/em> newspaper. The publication was entitled \u201cEntertainment for a racketeer?\u201d and described Mr\u00a0S.S., an office holder at the Government of the Perm Region, as \u201can experienced criminal\u201d and \u201cracketeer\u201d. The article reported on the recently opened criminal proceedings against Mr\u00a0S.S.<\/p>\n

In 2001 Mr S.S. had been found guilty by a final court judgment of two crimes: extortion and robbery.<\/td>\n

Mr S.S., deputy head of an architectural-construction inspection of the Perm Region<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

The disseminated statements had tarnished the claimant\u2019s reputation because the record of his criminal convictions for robbery and extortion had been expunged by the time of the publication of the article. The criminal proceedings mentioned in the article of 18\/05\/2007 had resulted in his acquittal on 14\/04\/2008.<\/td>\nDespite the expungement, the fact that Mr\u00a0S.S. had repeatedly committed serious crimes remained and accordingly could be referred to in the article.<\/td>\nFirst instance: Leninskiy District Court of Perm, 18\/08\/2010;<\/p>\n

Appeal: Perm Regional Court, 30\/09\/2010<\/td>\n

The statements had been disseminated and had been untrue because the criminal record had been expunged and because the claimant would be later acquitted of the crime imputed at the time of the publication.<\/td>\nA retraction and compensation of non\u2011pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n

RUB\u00a030,000 to pe paid by the publisher of the\u00a0Permskiye Novosti<\/em> newspaper and RUB\u00a010,000 to be paid by Mr\u00a0Lobanov<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

3<\/td>\n74389\/10** and 15503\/13<\/td>\nAn article, written by Ms\u00a0Kharitonova and Mr\u00a0Pronyakin and published on 13\/04\/2011 on the Debri-DV website and in the Khabarovskiy Express<\/em> newspaper. This publication was entitled \u201cThe Plenipotentiary Tree of Viktor Ishayev\u201d and contained a picture of a \u201cgenealogical tree\u201d with photos and brief biographies of a number of influential persons in the Khabarovsk Region connected to Viktor Ishayev, then the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian federation in the Far-East Federal Circuit.<\/p>\n

The article was based on a number of previously published materials, which was expressly mentioned in the publication.<\/td>\n

Mr A.Sh,, member of the Russian State Duma<\/td>\n\u201cIt follows from the context of the article that in the Khabarovsk Region there is a criminal syndicate \u2013 a \u2018tree\u2019 \u2013 headed by high-ranking State officials\u201d. \u201cThe statement that I had received \u2018protection\u2019 when standing for the State Duma discredits me and our electoral system.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Mr A.Sh. as a member of the State Duma is a public person whose activities should be subject to media scrutiny.<\/td>\nThe Tsentralnyy District Court of Khabarovsk dismissed the claims in their entirety on 26\/08\/2011;<\/p>\n

the Khabarovsk Regional Court on 21\/12\/2011 quashed it and remitted for a fresh examination in the first instance. The Tsentralny District Court again dismissed the claims on 05\/05\/2012.<\/p>\n

The Khabarovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and delivered a new judgment on 22\/08\/2012. Cassation appeal was unsuccessful.<\/td>\n

The defendants had disseminated tarnishing statements the truthfulness of which they had not proved. That the article had been based on previously published materials was irrelevant as the borrowings were not verbatim. The amount of the award was determined \u201ctaking into account the personality of the claimant, a member of the State Duma, that is, a public person, and the degree of his physical and psychological suffering\u201d.<\/td>\nA retraction and compensation of non\u2011pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n

RUB\u00a030,000 in compensation of non\u2011pecuniary damage to be paid by Ms\u00a0Kharitonova and Mr\u00a0Pronyakin, each; RUB\u00a05,000 in court fees<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/td>\nColonel General V.Ch., former Commander of the Far-East Military Circuit, the Head of the Russian Customs Academy<\/td>\nThe article contained untrue and tarnishing statements of fact.<\/td>\nThe impugned statements were value judgments that had had sufficient factual basis; the article contained references to the sources used.<\/td>\nFirst instance: the Zheleznodorozhny Court of Khabarovsk, 29\/05\/2012.<\/p>\n

Appeal: the Khabarovsk Regional Court, 12\/09\/2012.<\/p>\n

Cassation appeals unsuccessful.<\/td>\n

\u201cThe defendants did not produce the evidence to prove the truthfulness of the statements disseminated in [the impugned] article\u201d.<\/td>\nA retraction and compensation of non\u2011pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n

RUB 30,000 to be paid by Ms\u00a0Kharitonova and Mr\u00a0Pronyakin, each<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/td>\nMajor General V.B., former Head of the Department of the Interior of the Khabarovsk Region<\/td>\nThe article contained untrue and tarnishing statements of fact.<\/td>\nThe impugned statements were value judgments that had had sufficient factual basis; the article contained references to the sources used.<\/td>\nFirst instance: the Tsentralny District Court of Khabarovsk, 20\/09\/2012.<\/p>\n

Appeal: the Khabarovsk Regional Court, 23\/01\/2013.<\/p>\n

Cassation appeals unsuccessful.<\/td>\n

The defendants had disseminated tarnishing statements the truthfulness of which they had not proved.<\/td>\nA retraction and compensation of non\u2011pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n

RUB 20,000 to be paid by Ms\u00a0Kharitonova and Mr\u00a0Pronyakin, each.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/td>\nColonel General V.N., former Commander of the Commander of the Far-East Military Circuit<\/td>\nThe article tarnished the claimant\u2019s reputation.<\/td>\nThe impugned statements were value judgments that had had sufficient factual basis; the article contained references to the sources used.<\/td>\nFirst instance: the Tsentralny District Court of Khabarovsk, 20\/09\/2012.<\/p>\n

Appeal: the Khabarovsk Regional Court, 18\/01\/2013.<\/p>\n

Cassation appeals unsuccessful.<\/td>\n

The defendants had disseminated tarnishing statements the truthfulness of which they had not proved.<\/td>\nA retraction and compensation of non\u2011pecuniary damage:<\/p>\n

RUB 20,000 to be paid by Ms\u00a0Kharitonova and Mr\u00a0Pronyakin, each<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

*Application form of 29 November 2010<\/p>\n

** Additional application forms of 28 January 2013, 11 February 2013, 2 June 2013, and 3 June 2013<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

APPENDIX III: ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention)<\/strong><\/td>\nThe Court\u2019s award<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nPecuniary damage<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nNon-pecuniary damage<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nCosts and expenses<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nPecuniary damage<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nNon-pecuniary damage<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\nCosts and expenses<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1.<\/td>\n74389\/10<\/strong><\/td>\n1,000 euros (EUR) (no\u00a0documents in support of the claim)<\/td>\nEUR 250,000<\/td>\nEUR 50 (no documents in support of the claim)<\/td>\nNo award owing to the lack of supporting documents<\/td>\nEUR 9,750<\/td>\nNo award owing to the lack of supporting documents<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n12562\/11<\/strong><\/td>\nRUB 10,000 (no documents in support of the claim)<\/td>\nEUR 10,000<\/td>\nEUR 1,000 in legal fees (no documents in support of the claim)<\/p>\n

EUR 100 in postal expenses (no documents in support of the claim)<\/td>\n

EUR 7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n15503\/13<\/strong><\/td>\nEUR\u00a01,400 (no documents in support of the claim)<\/td>\nEUR\u00a0500,000<\/td>\nEUR 200 (no documents in support of the claim)<\/td>\nEUR 9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n