BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

new-born babies, but also informed its clients about photography services. This case demonstrates that business entities may be required not only to respect human rights themselves, but also to ensure that the persons related to them act in compliance with the Convention too. A photograph of the applicant’s son had been published on the cover page of a booklet informing the public about the efforts to protect orphans and to assist families looking for adoption in the case of Bogomolova v. Russia . 63 The use of a minor’s image took place without parental authorisation and the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The booklet was published not by a business entity, but by a non-governmental organisation, the Centre for Psychological, Medical and Social Support. Nevertheless, if the similar situation would occur with the involvement of a business corporation, the result of the Court’s examination of the case might be the same. The right to protection of reputation is a specific right which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention as part of the right to respect for private life. 64 This right also applies to publications concerning the reputation of a deceased member of a person’s family. In the case of Dzhugashvili v. Russia 65 the applicant, the grandson of the former Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, sued the newspaper (Novaya Gazeta) for defamation of his grandfather. The Court declared the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, observing that the articles concerned an event of significant historical importance. It also found that the Russian courts took into account the Court’s case-law and had carefully balanced the competing interests. The case of Putistin v. Ukraine concerned an article written about the legendary “Death Match” between Ukrainian footballers and members of the German Luftwaffe in 1942. The applicant alleged that the article published in the newspaper Komsomolska Pravda discredited his father, who had played in the game, as it suggested that he had been a collaborator. The Court ruled that there had been no violation of Article 8 finding that the Ukrainian courts had struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and the right of the newspaper to freedom of expression. The Court noted that the publication did not mention the applicant’s father’s name at all and did not directly make the allegation that his father had been a collaborator. 66 When dealing with defamation proceedings, domestic courts should attach importance to the right to the presumption of innocence. Moreover, they should closely examine whether the media has acted in good faith and has provided reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. In the case of Ageyevy v. Russia the applicants complained that the Russian courts had failed to protect the mother’s reputation in defamation proceedings in respect to media reports describing her alleged ill-treatment of her son. 67 The Court noted that the media had failed to take the necessary steps to report the incident in an objective and rigorous manner, trying 63 ECtHR, Bogomolova v. Russia , Appl. No. 13812/09, Judgment, 20 June 2017, § 8. 64 ECtHR, Axel Springer AG v. Germany , Appl. No. 39954/08, Judgment, 7 February 2012, § 83. 65 ECtHR, Dzhugashvili v. Russia , Appl. No. 41123/10, Decision, 9 December 2014. 66 ECtHR, Putistin v. Ukraine , Appl. No. 16882/03, Judgment, 21 November 2013, § 37. 67 ECtHR, Ageyevy v. Russia , Appl. No. 7075/10, Judgment, 18 April 2013, § 201.

47