25 Dec The decision to deport journalists duo to their irresponsible behavior

In the case of Zarubin and Others v. Lithuania (applications nos. 69111/17, 69112/17, 69113/17 and 69114/17) the European Court of Human Rights has today by a majority declared the applications inadmissible. 

The case concerned Lithuania’s expulsion and ban on re-entry of four Russian journalists working for Russian state-owned broadcaster Rossiya-24 after their actions at a conference in Vilnius in March 2016. The conference, co-organised by the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dealt with various issues on Russia and included Russian opposition activists. The domestic authorities had established that the applicants had caused incidents and disruption. In particular, they had been given an assignment by their employer to gather information about prominent Russian political opposition activists participating in the Forum; they had not obtained or attempted to obtain accreditation, but had gained access to the event by deception and had provoked confrontations with security guards and participants. Despite being warned by the police, they had on the following day attempted to film the participants on a mobile telephone, and there was information that they had likely planned to cause another confrontation on the last day of the Forum.

The Migration Department issued decisions to expel the applicants and to ban their re-entry for one year. The decisions cited information from the Lithuanian State Security Department that the men, representatives of television channel Rossiya-24, could represent a threat to national security. It also referred to their “attacks” during the Forum, as reported by local media media and recorded by the police.

The Court was prepared to accept that the measures against the applicants had constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10. However, it held that the authorities had demonstrated that the measures had been necessary in the interests of national security and proportionate. 

There was nothing in the case file to suggest that the courts had erred in their assessment or had applied the law in an arbitrary fashion, thus the Court saw no grounds to disagree with their conclusion that the expulsion and entry ban had been necessary in the interests of national security. The authorities had also acted in a proportionate way: the applicants had not been prohibited from making statements or disseminating statements about the Forum, rather they had been expelled and banned from re-entry owing to aggressive and provocative actions. 

Lastly, the Court reiterated that the protection which Article 10 gave to journalists was subject to the proviso that they acted in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism. That was not confined to content, but also concerned a journalist’s conduct. In this case, the Court was unable to accept that the applicants’ conduct had been compatible with the concept of responsible journalism. The complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded and had to be rejected as inadmissible.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights