Now let's talk about the new attitude to freedom of speech in the European Union. This week, I received the decision of general jurisdiction court in Luxembourg in which I tried to challenge personal sanctions imposed on me as a journalist by the EU. It was after the situation with Crimea in early 2014.
The legal battle lasted for two years, and the court decided to hold hearings in my absence. That is, I wasn't allowed to speak in the courtroom and even to be present there. As a result, the sanctions were upheld, and the court, thus, not only decided to castigate freedom of speech but also to infringe my right to self-defence.
An unprecedented practice towards a journalist. Filing the lawsuit, I wanted to protect the right to freedom of speech of all my colleagues in Russia and the European Union, which is a core value for journalists, but, apparently, now it’s not like the old days in Europe. Anyway, I’m heartily grateful to everyone who supported this claim, to all those who hoped for a prudent outcome of the case. I’m grateful to our Russian and British lawyers who defended freedom of speech so sincerely and genuinely, trying to save Europe from a precedent that is so burdensome for future judicial practice. It didn’t work out.
That's how lawyer John Linneker comments on it today. We are sure that this decision is incorrect. The court didn’t take the facts into account and applied incorrect legal principles, which, as it seems to us, led to incorrect conclusions. We like to think that we have rights and freedoms in Europe, and it’s extremely strange to see a restriction on freedom of movement and work of journalists.
