Scientists streamline data transmission through self-assembling wireless networkScience & Space March 30, 15:41
Putin blasts attempts to restrict Russian ambassador's contacts with US politiciansRussian Politics & Diplomacy March 30, 15:29
Putin says Russia wants to build good relations with USRussian Politics & Diplomacy March 30, 15:04
Russia determined to comply with Paris climate agreements — PutinRussian Politics & Diplomacy March 30, 14:56
Burger King dishes out nearly $2,000 in fines for not giving customer free cherry pieSociety & Culture March 30, 14:55
Foreign Ministry slams US media smear campaign against Russian diplomats as ‘threat’Russian Politics & Diplomacy March 30, 14:49
Moscow promises to ensure security of Arctic cooperation partnersRussian Politics & Diplomacy March 30, 14:35
Putin says ready to meet with Trump at Arctic summit in FinlandRussian Politics & Diplomacy March 30, 14:20
BP Russia president vows company will keep investing in Russian oil and gas projectsBusiness & Economy March 30, 14:08
STRASBOURG, January 15. /TASS/. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected a lawsuit filed by the grandson of Joseph Stalin claiming a Russian newspaper had defamed the Soviet leader in 2009.
“In its decision in the case of Dzhugashvili v. Russia (application no. 41123/10) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final,” the court said on Thursday.
Yevgeny Dzhugashvili filed a claim on June 4, 2010, condemning the articles published by the Novaya Gazeta newspaper about the shooting of Polish prisoners of war in Katyn in 1940 and the role that Stalin had allegedly played in the tragedy.
Dzhugashvili, a Russian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Moscow, filed a defamation suit against the newspaper and the author of the article for damages totaling 9.5 million rubles (211.488 euros at that currency rate) in a Russian court, which ruled against him.
The European court held that the articles “concerned an event of significant historical importance and that both the event and historical figures involved, such as the applicant’s grandfather, inevitably remain open to public scrutiny and criticism.”
The court also found that “the Russian courts, taking into account the European Court’s case law, had carefully balanced the competing interests of journalistic expression and the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and that of his grandfather.”.