Roskomnadzor issued a warning to the St. Petersburg Agency “the Judicial decision of the Russian Federation for publishing of the texts of four court decisions, told RBC chief editor Paul Nietupski. His words confirms the document dated June 22, signed by the Deputy head of Roskomnadzor Antonina Priezzheva (have RBC).
Claims of Roskomnadzor, according to the letter, relate to four publications on the Agency’s website, they all relate to judicial decisions. Tver district court of Moscow convicted Rotina P. C. for the use of violence against a representative of authorities, Izmailovsky district court of Moscow condemned Vyazovskiy V. A. for five years and six months for robbery, appeals the determination of the St. Petersburg city court for recognition of the right of ownership of the apartment, and the decision of the scherbinovsky district court of Krasnodar territory — compensation for moral harm, protection of honor and dignity Sokolova M. V. in a dispute with the Central regional hospital.
Roskomnadzor saw the publication of judicial decisions disclosure of personal data that identify the participants in the process — plaintiffs and defendants. This contradicts the provisions of the Russian legislation on mass media, which prohibits disclosures to the media (media) is specifically protected by the law secret. What specific data is not arranged in the Roskomnadzor website on the “Judicial decisions of the Russian Federation”, the warning is not specified. The representative of Roskomnadzor Vadim Ampelonskiy has not responded to a request to RBC.
The Agency requires the media to remove the indicated decision of the court within 10 days after receipt of the document. In the text of the claims of Roskomnadzor salceda part 3, article 15 of the law “on providing access to information on courts ‘activities” and requires that the judgments were excluded all personal data including full name, nationality and age as well as passport data, place of residence, place of work. The law allows to leave the solutions only the names of actors or pseudonyms for “security” of the parties. In three decisions, which the office of any claim, surname, name and patronymic of the defendant are given in full, the fourth only contains the initials, however, detailed information on the state of health of the plaintiff.
Chief editor of “Judicial Decisions of the Russian Federation” Pavel Netupsky told RBC that the Agency”literally reproduced” in the form in which they are posted on the website of the courts themselves: written by “robot” in automatic mode “crawls” websites and gathers the published solution. On the website “Judicial decisions of the Russian Federation” is now lined with nearly 8 million judicial decisions, specifies Netupsky. According to him, over the past five years the Department for the protection of personal data Roskomnadzor sent to the editorial office hundreds of letters, “whose legal status was uncertain: sometimes they were called request, sometimes a demand, sometimes they contained a warning about the administrative liability, if the editor does not take action. Received today a warning — the first, the newspaper plans to appeal it in court, assured RBC Netupsky.
The representative of the St. Petersburg branch of the glasnost defense Foundation, a non-profit organization established in 1991, a member of the International Association for the protection of freedom of speech) Roman Zakharov indicates that the Roskomnadzor media first brings warning for a verbatim reproduction of the court verdict. It turns out, the Agency disputes the manner of publication of decisions on websites of courts, says Zakharov. In his opinion, such a move could become a “run-in” technology: “First, they [Roskomnadzor] to find fault with a single resource, and then begin to issue warnings for the coverage of public trials in the media”.
Lawyer Board “Trunov, Aivar and partners” Sarkis Darbinyan notes that citizens often turn to Roskomnadzor with the requirement to remove the materials of the court with aggregators like the website “Judicial decisions of the Russian Federation”. He found it difficult to give specific examples. Darbinyan believes that in this case, the claim should be directed not to the aggregator of judicial decisions and to the court that there was a mistake in the processing solution and discharge it to the website.
Managing partner of the law firm “Losev and partners” Vyacheslav Losev says that I have not heard that Roskomnadzor took out the prevention for reprinting of court decisions. This case could become an “interesting precedent”, and in the future be extended to cases where Internet users, for example, in social networks, give the full court’s decision or its part.
With the participation of Anastasia Mikhailova