Grigory Luchansky vs The Times
This case has entered the annals of English law and is now studied in law schools.
The London Times, having published in 1999 a slanderous article about Grigory Luchansky, tried to use the legal principle of "professional privilege" in its defense - the right of the media to print even unverified information if the journalists have done their job "professionally enough" and the subject of the article is of "public interest".
Only two lawsuits in the history of the English media, when the court completely sided with the Plaintiff, denying the media "professional privilege", entered the legal annals: the victory of Grigory Luchansky over the London Times and the victory of the Prime Minister of Ireland Arnold Reynolds over the same newspaper.
2001: The judge of the High Court of England and Wales, Sir Charles Gray (Justice Gray) in the case of “Luchansky v. the publisher of “The Times” newspaper, its editor Stothard and journalists Lister and Bone,” declared that the article published in 1999 in the newspaper “The Times,” in which Luchansky is presented as the boss of the largest Russian criminal organization, and as participating in the criminal laundering of billions of dollars and the smuggling of nuclear weapons, as defamatory and unsubstantiated. Judge Gray refused to accept the arguments of “The Times” that the hearing should be cancelled or delayed, allegedly because Luchansky cannot receive compensation for damages, is “a man with a bad reputation,” and has been personally banned by the Secretary of State for Home Department of Her Majesty from entering the UK on the grounds that his presence in the country “will not contribute to the public good.” Judge Gray also denied the right to use “professional privilege” by “The Times” for the re-publication of these articles online.
2001: Judges Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Longmore of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales refused to satisfy the appeal of the newspaper, “The Times,” and refused to revoke Judge Gray’s decision in the case of “Luchansky v. ’The Times’”. The judges noted the failure of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Her Majesty to provide a clear explanation for Luchansky’s ban of entry to the UK, pointed out the contradictions in the actions of Her Majesty’s Government, and, despite the ban, allowed, Luchansky to enter the country to testify.
2001: The Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Judges Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Brooke and Sir Martin Nourse repeatedly refused the appeal of the newspaper “The Times” on cancellation or postponement of Judge Gray’s decision in the case of “Luchansky v. ‘The Times,’” confirming that in accordance with the standards of “responsible journalism,” prior to the publications of defamatory articles in 1999 with the extremely grave accusations against Luchansky, “The Times” was obliged to carefully check published allegations and hear the position of Luchansky. The Court ruled that the appeal of newspaper should be denied, Judge Gray’s decisions should be confirmed and the petition of “The Times” to the House of Lords should be refused.
2001: The Royal Judge of the High Court of England and Wales, Sir Charles Gray denied the request of the newspaper “The Times” the right to “professional privilege” for re-posting two slanderous articles from 1999 defaming Luchansky on the Internet. Without denying the fact that the allegations are false and unproven, “The Times” demanded the right to publish them online “in the public interest”. Judge Gray ruled that every access to archived articles is a separate publication, and correspondingly the right to “professional privilege” cannot be applied to materials which are libelous and are a subject of the court proceedings.
2002: The Royal Judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, Lord Justice Simon Brown refused to admit the request of the newspaper “The Times” to amend the law of England and Wales, which would exonerate publishers and journalists from liabilities due to the storage of Internet archives of deliberately slanderous articles. The judges confirmed that the defamatory articles published on the Internet about Luchansky without informing the readers that the newspaper did not have any evidence confirming them and that court hearings are being held with regard to such publications did not comply with the policy of “responsible journalism.” However, the judges agreed with the request of the newspaper “The Times” to return the case to Judge Gray to determine whether deliberately defamatory articles by “The Times” are of such importance for society that they should continue to be published on the Internet.
2002: The Royal Judge of the High Court of England and Wales, Sir Charles Gray dismissed the request of newspaper “The Times” to postpone hearings on the Luchansky case “in order to gather additional evidence.” Judge Gray refused to consider as evidence a report prepared by the Prosecutor’s Office of Bologna (Italy) about operation “Web” because this report did not contain any specific information about Luchansky’s involvement in large-scale money laundering through the Bank of New York, and because the Italian Judge Dzuffi refused to issue a warrant authorizing the pre-trial arrest of Luchansky. Judge Gray pointed out that the opinion of “The Times” and its efforts to prove the allegations with regard to large-scale money laundering by Luchansky is significantly weakened by the fact that the newspaper admitted that two other publications are slanderous. Judge Gray also noted that, despite the warnings provided by the court about the duty of responsible journalists to ask Luchansky about his point of view, “The Times” continued finishing an investigation for the materials allegedly compromising Luchansky without informing him about it.
2002: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal of the “The Times,” refusing to reverse or revoke the decision of Judge Gray and Court of Appeal of England and Wales, stating that the request of “The Times” for “professional privilege” is redundant.
2004: The Chairman of the British Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that any personal reasons and justification of the ban issued by the Secretary of State Home Department of Her Majesty with regard to Luchansky prohibiting him from entering the UK must be fair and be made public.
2004: The Secretary of State Home Department of Her Majesty revoked the ban on Luchansky’s entry to the UK without providing explanation.
2005: The Home Office of Great Britain refuses to compensate Luchansky’s costs incurred during legal proceedings with Her Majesty’s Government.
2006: The Home Office of Great Britain agrees to pay a considerable amount of money as compensation for Luchansky’s costs and moral damages.
2009: The European Court of Human Rights dismissed the claim of the British newspaper in “‘The Times’ vs. the Government of the UK,” thus confirming the invalidity of defamatory statements published with regard to Russian businessman Grigory Luchansky.
International Court of Justice
COURT VICTORIES
Dr. Luchansky and NORDEX initiated 26 lawsuits against media outlets and government agencies across different countries — and won all 26 cases.
Here are some highlights:
1996:
1996: The Hamburg Regional Court in the case of “Luchansky and Nordex v. Jürgen Roth” prohibited the defendant from showing the film, “The New Mafia from the East,” produced by Jürgen Roth, and from distributing the false statements that the plaintiffs belong to Russian mafia through third parties, under the penalty of six months imprisonment.
1996: In the case of “Luchansky and Nordex v. publishing house Rasch & Rohrig Verlag GmbH,” the Hamburg Regional Court prohibited the defendant from publishing and distributing the book, “Russian Mafia. The most dangerous syndicate of the world,” written by Jürgen Roth, as long as the book contains false allegations about the involvement of the plaintiffs in the Russian mafia, under penalty of imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to 500,000 marks, with compensation of the litigation costs to the plaintiffs including future claims of up to one million Deutschemark.
1997: The Municipal Court of Vienna, in the case of “Luchansky and Nordex v. the publishing house Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH and journalist Andreas Weber,” declared the defendants guilty of publicly disseminating information containing false allegations, including that Luchansky created the company Nordex with KGB funding, that the plaintiffs were involved in the smuggling of weapons to North Korea and Iran, that telephone of Luchansky was tapped by secret services, that the invitation for a dinner with US President Bill Clinton was withdrawn after Luchansky was checked by the US Secret Service and that the defendants were linked to organized crime and the Russian mafia. The court ordered the defendants to publish a correction in bold print in the politics section of the next issue of the magazine “Profil,” and obliged the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs with all the court costs as well as profits lost as a result of the publication of this article.
1997: The Commercial Court of Vienna in the case of “Nordex and Luchansky v. the publishing house Krone Verlag GmbH” decided to approve the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, confirming that all the information and allegations with regard to Nordex and Luchansky stated in the article, “An incredible legacy of the deceased godfather,” published in the national edition of the newspaper “Neue Krone Zeitung” are false and unfounded, ordering the editor and publisher to serve the plaintiffs with a public apology, and ordering the defendants to publish a correction in bold print in the editorial section “Economics” the next issue of the “Neue Krone Zeitung,” and making all efforts necessary to block the further spread of false information discrediting the plaintiffs, along with the reimbursement of all the plaintiff’s legal costs.
1998: The Vienna Commercial Court considered the case “Nordex v. member of Austrian Parliament, leader the FPO party Jörg Haider” and declared to approve the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and to oblige Jörg Haider to publicly refute the false statements made on television that the company Nordex is a mafia structure that uses links with leading Austrian politicians for its own commercial gain, and to provide a written text of the refutation to the agency “APA Austria Presseagentur” to be published by the Austrian media, and to compensate the plaintiff’s litigation costs.
1999: The Vienna Municipal Court considered the case of “Luchansky v. Hans Reichmann, and the publishing house Wirtschaftswoche Zeitsehriften Verlag GmbH & Co KG,” and declared Hans Reichmann guilty of writing the article “KGB in ING,” containing false accusations that Luchansky engaged in money laundering through the company Nordex, and obliged the defendants to compensate Luchansky’s reputational damages and withdraw all copies of the corresponding issue of the magazine “Wirtschaftswoche.”
1999: Journalist Martin Schwartz provided a letter to Luchansky stating that in accordance with the decision of Vienna appellate court, the publishing house “Familiapress” published a correction to the false accusations with regards to Luchansky in the newspaper “Die ganze Woche,” and attached the relevant copy of the newspaper.
1999: The Vienna Commercial Court considered the case “Nordex and Luchansky v. member of Austrian Parliament Ewald Stadler,” and decided to approve the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, obliging Ewald Stadler to publicly rebut false statements about the connections of the company Nordex and Luchansky with the Eastern European mafia, and false statements about the use of contacts with well-known European politicians for shady business in Austria and abroad, and to provide a written text of the relevant refutation to the agency “APA Austria Presseagentur” to be published by the Austrian media, while reimbursing the plaintiffs’ litigation costs.