CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDC7C0B24 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sF74FAE9B { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.5pt } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sED360BAA { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s980E2CFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE4EB4F8C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s227984AF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-22.7pt; text-align:justify } .s636BD389 { width:12.04pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s12B939F1 { width:9.38pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DE88426 { width:180.29pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RODINA v. LATVIA (Applications nos. 48534/10 and 19532/15)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Private life • Publication of the family story of an unknown doctor in a newspaper and its subsequent broadcast on television at the initiative of her relatives • Journalistic report of a family dispute highly critical of the doctor • Serious intrusion into private life • Lack of domestic courts’ examination of the disputed statements as a whole in the context • Doubts as to the journalists having acted in good faith, in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism • Absence of contribution to a debate of public interest for the reporting of the story and the publishing of the family photograph in the newspaper without taking any precautions • Domestic courts’ failure to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right under Art 8 and her relatives’ right to freedom of expression, as reported by the mass media, under Art 10   STRASBOURG 14 May 2020   FINAL   14/08/2020     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rodina v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lado Chanturia,   Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   48534/10 and 19532/15) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Latvian national, Ms Irina Rodina (“the applicant”), on 17 August 2010 and 27 December 2011 respectively; the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 8 to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 15 April 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION The case concerns the applicant’s allegations that her rights, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, were breached on account of the publication of her family story in a newspaper (application no. 48534/10), as well as its subsequent broadcast on television (application no. 19532/15) and the Latvian courts’ failure to protect her rights in two sets of civil proceedings. THE FACTS 1.     The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Riga. She is a doctor with at least twenty-five years’ work experience. She was working in the State Blood Donor Centre as the head of the Audit Department at the material time. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms I. Nikuļceva, a lawyer practising in Riga. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Disputed article in a newspaper 5.     On 31 January 2005 the Russian-language newspaper Čas ( Час ) published an article, written by A.P., entitled “An apartment sets a family at loggerheads” ( к вартира рассорила семью ). It was published on the fourth page, under the column “Society” and the headline “A family drama”. The article was also published on the newspaper’s Internet site. 6.     The introductory part of the article read as follows: “[The applicant’s mother] has two daughters and one would think that the 76-year-old lady was guaranteed a carefree old age. Yet, the circumstances of her life have taken a different turn. The family problems are not clear-cut ( неоднозначны ), and it is difficult to establish on which side the truth lies. We are providing the story told by an elderly lady and the narrative of her relatives.” 7.     The applicant was not mentioned by her full name in the article; she was referred to as “the elder daughter”. However, the article contained her maiden name, her mother’s full name, the first names of her father, sister and niece, as well as her profession and place of residence and her photograph (see paragraph 10 below). 8.     The article stated that the applicant had taken her mother to a psychiatric hospital and in the meantime sold her mother’s apartment in Purvciems; after her mother’s health improved, the applicant had refused to take her out of the hospital or to support her; although the applicant herself was a doctor, her mother could not afford to buy medication; and the applicant’s mother had been advised to bring a claim for financial support against the applicant in the competent courts, while the applicant had brought proceedings to have her mother declared legally incapable. 9.     The concluding part of the article read as follows: “We contacted the elder daughter by telephone and invited her to express her attitude towards the situation in the family. She replied that there was no way she would comment on her sick mother’s behaviour. Upon her insistent appeal ( uzstājīgs lūgums ), we are not disclosing the name and surname of the elder daughter in the article.” 10.     The article was accompanied by a relatively big family photograph (portrait), which had been provided by the applicant’s mother. It showed the applicant, her mother and father, her husband and son, her sister and her niece. 11.     According to the applicant, prior to the publication of the article, the journalist had called and asked comments on the situation in the family (see paragraph 9 above). She had not been informed that the article would be accompanied by the family photograph. The applicant had expressed the wish to see the draft article. As the journalist had refused it, she had gone to the newspaper’s premises. As her request for a meeting was refused, she had made the following declaration to the editor-in-chief of the newspaper but received no response: “I hereby inform you that I am categorically against the planned publication of the article written by A.P. because it concerns my private life and interprets events from the viewpoint of my mother ([who is] 76 years old and mentally ill), and reveals information about my personal data and that of my family members. What is more, A.P. has absolutely refused to show me the article before its publication.” First set of civil proceedings 12.     On 10 November 2005 the applicant, together with her husband and son, brought proceedings against the publisher, the applicant’s sister N.Ļ. and her niece’s husband J.K. (who had made some of the contested statements) before the Riga City Centre District Court ( Rīgas pilsētas Centra rajona tiesa ). The applicant requested that fourteen statements in the article be declared false and that the publication of her family’s photograph be declared unlawful. She further sought an order requiring the publisher to retract the false information and publish a written apology for having published it. She also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 13.     The applicant relied on the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media (see paragraphs 58-60 below) and sections 1635 and 2352a of the Civil Law (see paragraphs 54-56 below). 14.     She also referred to the right to private life as protected by the Constitution ( Satversme ), without referring to a specific Article, and other “human rights instruments”, citing Article 17 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the “ICCPR”), which protects privacy, honour and reputation. 15.     The contested statements read as follows: 1)     The article’s headline: “An apartment sets a family at loggerheads”. 2)     Introductory statement by journalist A.P.: “...and one would think that the 76-year-old lady was guaranteed a carefree old age. Yet, the circumstances of her life have taken a different turn.” 3)     Statement by the applicant’s mother: “... the elder daughter started to ask me and my husband to privatise [our] two-bedroom apartment in Purvciems in her name ... The elder daughter replied that she needed her inheritance. So to say, [while] I and [her father] helped [the applicant’s sister] to pay back a loan for an apartment [in Imanta], but [allegedly the applicant] had to pay for [her] apartment [in Ziepniekkalns] alone.” 4)     Statement by the applicant’s mother: “... and I did not see her for two months”. 5)     Statement by the applicant’s mother: “While [the applicant’s father] was still alive, [the applicant] did not help [us], but she did not throw us out either.” 6)     Statement by the husband of the applicant’s niece J.K.: “[The applicant’s mother] was strongly affected by her husband’s death. She was left alone in the apartment, she suffered from depression...” 7)     Statement by the husband of the applicant’s niece J.K.: “The elder daughter took care of her mother in the spring – she sent her to receive medical treatment in a mental hospital ...” 8)     Statement by the husband of the applicant’s niece J.K.: “Owing to treatment and medicine provided by doctors, the depression disappeared. In the summer the elder daughter took [her mother] to live with her in Ziepniekkalns.” 9)     Statement by the husband of the applicant’s niece J.K.: “... meanwhile she changed her mother’s declared place of residence – she ‘moved’ her from the flat in Purvciems to [the one in] Ziepniekkalns. Before long, the mother was sent to the hospital again.” 10)     Statement by the husband of the applicant’s niece J.K.: “... a question arose: who would pay the additional charges and place her in a retirement home. Knowing that [the mother’s] apartment had been registered in the name of her elder daughter, we expected some help from her.” 11)     Statement by the husband of the applicant’s niece J.K.: “... [the applicant’s] reaction was completely the opposite: she did not want to place her mother in the retirement home, nor did she want to pay any money”. 12)     Statement by the applicant’s sister N.Ļ.: “[The elder] sister is ready to do anything to avoid paying maintenance ( алименты ) to our mother, but the mother is spending barely 20 Latvian lati (LVL) [approximately 28 euros (EUR)] per month for her medicine. Yet, the elder sister is giving her only LVL 10 [approximately EUR 14].” 13)     Concluding statement by the journalist A.P.: “... and invited her to express her attitude towards the situation in the family”. 14)     Concluding statement by the journalist A.P.: “Upon her insistent appeal...”. 16.     On 6 June 2007 the Riga City Centre District Court partly granted the applicant’s claim against the publisher under, inter alia , sections 1635 and 2352a of the Civil Law, but dismissed it in so far as it concerned the other defendants. The court established that the applicant’s mother had periodically resided with each daughter. Both of them had provided for her. The applicant’s parents had transferred one apartment to each daughter. While there had been disagreement within the family about the amount of maintenance for and living conditions of the applicant’s mother, there was no proof that the applicant did not care for her or had refused to provide for her. Having analysed the article in its entirety, the court found that the text of the article had gone beyond the views expressed by the family members. The article had contained unjustified conclusions provided in the form of statements of fact. The true information had been presented in an overly negative form. Moreover, the newspaper’s employees – as professionals – should have treated the views expressed by the applicant’s mother with a degree of criticism because they had been aware that proceedings for the removal of her legal capacity had been pending. 17.     While the court established that the defendants (J.K. and N.Ļ.) had not disseminated false information, the article by itself had been damaging to the applicant’s honour and dignity on account of its strictly negative and denigrating nature. The court did not accept the journalist’s argument that the disputed article would not have been published had the applicant expressly requested it. The court dismissed the publisher’s argument that the disputed article had reported on an issue of public interest. It held that in order to achieve such an aim, it would have been sufficient to report on that issue without identifying the person concerned against her wishes. 18.     In the court’s view, the fact that the article had been accompanied by the photograph was one of the most important legal grounds for the applicant’s claim – it had infringed the fundamental human right to private life and, consequently, also damaged honour and dignity. The court went on to conclude that the applicant was clearly identifiable by means of the published photograph. The court further referred to Article 96 (right to private life) and Article 89 (protection of human rights) of the Constitution as well as Article 8 of the Convention. A photograph contained personal and even intimate information about an individual (the court referred to Von Hannover v. Germany (no.   59320/00, ECHR 2004 ‑ VI). The court reasoned that the applicant, who was a doctor, was not a public figure subject to wider limits of acceptable interferences with private life. 19.     The court concluded that the applicant’s right to private life had been infringed: “The testimonies of both parties ... conflict as regards the nature of the family dispute; however, the court considers that [those differences] are not relevant in the circumstances because the breach of the [applicant’s] rights was caused not so much by the situation itself and its description by one party in the newspaper, but rather [the breach of the applicant’s rights] resulted from the publication of the article in general, as it was tendentious and offensive and contained identifying information. Everyone has the right to express their opinion freely, for example by buying advertising space in a newspaper ... In such a case, the newspaper cannot be held liable. However, having considered the nature of the information included in the disputed article that is provided in the form of a statement [of fact] [but] does not contain facts provided by the interviewed persons or [report their] direct speech, the court establishes liability of [the publisher] pursuant to section 1635 of the Civil Law.” 20.     In the operative part of the judgment, referring to, among other things, Articles 89 and 96 of the Constitution and sections 1635 and 2352a of the Civil Law, the court concluded that four of the contested statements (see statements nos. 1, 2, 9 and 12, quoted in paragraph 15 above) were false and violated the applicant’s right to respect for her honour and dignity. 21.     On 27 May 2009 the Riga Regional Court ( Rīgas apgabaltiesa ) quashed the aforementioned judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim under, inter alia , section 2352a of the Civil Law. It was undisputed that the impugned article contained statements made by the journalist (statements nos. 1-2, 13-14), the applicant’s mother (statements nos. 3-5), the husband of the applicant’s niece (statements nos. 6-11) and the applicant’s sister (statement no. 12). It went on to analyse each of those statements save for statement no. 13 in relation to which the applicant had withdrawn her claim during the proceedings in the first-instance court. Statements nos. 1 and 2 had reflected the journalist’s opinion; their truthfulness could not be proved. Statements nos. 3-5 had been made by the applicant’s mother; their truthfulness need not be proved (she was not a defendant). The appellate court rejected the applicant’s argument that as the newspaper had been informed about her mother’s illness it had to bear responsibility for information disseminated by her. At the time of publication the applicant’s mother had had full legal capacity and thus could express her own opinion. She had been stripped of her legal capacity only on 4   January 2006. Statements nos. 6 and 8 had reflected the opinion of J.K. that the applicant’s mother suffered from depression. That was not factual information about a medical diagnosis. Moreover, it could not damage the applicant’s honour and dignity. Statement no. 7 had not been cited in its entirety. Having analysed the article as a whole, the court held that the phrase “sent her to receive treatment” had not been used in a negative sense. The article stated that the applicant cared for her mother and that her mother’s health had improved. The court held that the applicant’s honour and dignity could not be damaged by inaccurate information as to how many times her mother had been treated in a hospital and who had placed her there. Statement no. 9 had been true. The case materials indicated that in 2004, while her mother had been in hospital, the applicant had sold the apartment in Purvciems, where her mother had previously resided. Statement no. 10 had reflected the opinion of J.K. Although the applicant had indicated that her mother had never owned the apartment in Purvciems, that did not mean that this statement was false – it did not contain a direct reference to her mother as the owner of the apartment. Moreover, the statement could not damage the applicant’s honour and dignity. Statements nos.   11 and 12 had reflected the opinions of J.K. and N.Ļ. about family-related matters. The case materials indicated that on 20   December 2004 the applicant’s mother had brought proceedings against the applicant claiming maintenance; these had been examined by the courts at three different levels of jurisdiction. Statement no. 14 was not false and could not damage the applicant’s honour and dignity. 22.     The appellate court concluded that the impugned statements could not be regarded as false and that they had not damaged the applicant’s honour and dignity. Although the applicant considered the opinions expressed in those statements to be unacceptable, their truthfulness could not be verified as they were neither true nor false. The appellate court fully dismissed the applicant’s claim. The first-instance court had examined the context of the article but not each of the disputed statements separately and had not distinguished information ( ziņas ) from value judgments. 23.     In so far as the publication of the photograph was concerned, the appellate court held: “Likewise, the [applicant’s] allegation about the unlawful use of the family photograph and other identification data is not justified ... It is not disputed that the family photograph was provided and permission to use it given by [the applicant’s mother]. The said photograph was neutral, by itself it could not damage the [applicant’s] honour and dignity. Therefore, the [appellate court does not consider] that the appellant was not authorised to publish that photograph. [The applicant’s] allegation about the unlawful use of identifiable data relating to other individuals is unsubstantiated – it has not been shown which particular identifiable data was unlawfully used.” 24.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. She argued, inter alia , that the statements had to be analysed not only grammatically but also in their context, taking into account the status of the person who was being criticised, the contribution to a debate of public interest and the aim of the publication. Publication of the family photograph had also infringed her private life and damaged her honour and dignity. She also argued that the appellate court had applied section 2352a of the Civil Law incorrectly and that it had failed to apply section 1635 of the Civil Law, sections 21 and 28 of the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media and Article 17 of the ICCPR. 25.     On 18 February 2010 the Senate of the Supreme Court ( Augstākās tiesas Senāts ) in a preparatory meeting ( rīcības sēde ) adopted a decision (case no. SKC-444/2010) refusing to institute proceedings on points of law on the grounds that the lawfulness of the appellate court’s judgment could not be called into question and that the case could not contribute to the development of well-established case-law. In response to the applicant’s submissions, it held: “The [above-mentioned] references are aimed at establishing the circumstances of the case and obtaining a re-evaluation of the evidence in accordance with the views of [the applicant]. [The applicant] had based her claim on section 2352a of the Civil Law (as in force at the material time). In accordance with that provision, everyone has the right to apply to a court for the retraction of information harmful to their honour and dignity, unless the person who disseminated the information proves its veracity. For a claim to be granted on those legal grounds, it is a prerequisite for the claimant to prove that the disseminated information has injured his or her honour and dignity. If the defendants disagree with such a claim, it is their responsibility to submit evidence that the information [was] true. However, the disputed article, which was published in the newspaper Čas and on the newspaper’s Internet site, does not contain such information, as [the appellate court] duly established.” Disputed feature on television 26.     On 4 November 2005, at 7.55 p.m., a Latvian commercial television channel, TV3, broadcast a programme entitled “No time for taboos” ( Bez Tabu laiks ). During that programme, a short feature about the conflict in the applicant’s family was aired. 27.     That feature portrayed a similar story to the one which had been published in the newspaper ten months earlier. It was described as being about a family scandal: while her mother had been in hospital, the applicant was said to have sold her mother’s apartment. 28.     The applicant was mentioned twice by her full name in the disputed feature. Not only her mother’s personal data (such as information about her state of health) but also the applicant’s personal data (such as her national identity number and home address) were briefly broadcast. The family photograph, which had previously been published in the newspaper (see paragraph 10 above), was also broadcast. 29.     A journalist, A.D., stated that the applicant had sold her mother’s apartment while her mother had been in a psychiatric hospital. After her mother had been released from hospital, she had had nowhere to live. The applicant had applied to the domestic courts for an assessment of her mother’s psychiatric condition and had sought to be her guardian. Moreover, a power of attorney had been issued so that the applicant could act in her mother’s stead. 30.     For the purposes of the feature, the journalist had interviewed the applicant’s sister and mother. Extracts of that footage were broadcast. The feature also showed the applicant’s mother living in poor conditions. During the feature the journalist briefly broadcast and read out the conclusions of a psychiatric report concluding that the applicant’s mother suffered from vascular dementia. 31.     According to the applicant, prior to the broadcast of the feature, on 4   November 2005 at around 11 a.m. the journalist had called and informed her of the planned broadcast of the feature. The applicant had asked the journalist to postpone the broadcast for at least one day or to interview a neighbour, but the journalist had refused. The applicant had refused an interview because she had not been ready, could not leave her workplace and, in any event, had not wished to publicly comment on her ill mother’s state of health. An extract of their telephone conversation was nevertheless broadcast. Second set of civil proceedings 32.     On 20 December 2005 the applicant brought proceedings against the television channel TV3 and her sister, N.Ļ., before the Riga City Zemgale District Court ( Rīgas pilsētas Zemgales rajona tiesa ). On 13 November 2006 she supplemented her claim by also bringing it against journalist A.D. and the television production company. 33.     The applicant requested that eight statements (see paragraph 38 below) be declared false and offensive to her honour and dignity. She further sought an order requiring the defendants to retract the false information in the programme “No time for taboos” and to issue an apology for having broadcast it. She also sought compensation for personal and non-pecuniary damage ( personiskais un morālais kaitējums ). 34.     The applicant pointed out that both the newspaper article containing her family photograph and the telephone conversation with the journalist had been broadcast in the television feature without her consent, although she did not raise a separate claim about the family photograph and the telephone conversation in the concluding part of her statement of claim. She had been easily identifiable owing to the broadcasting of her family photograph. 35.     The applicant also alleged that the journalist had failed to take into account that she would be bringing proceedings against the publisher of the newspaper article. 36.     The applicant relied on the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media, the Radio and Television Law (see paragraphs 58-63 below), and sections 1635 and 2352a of the Civil Law (see paragraphs 54-56 below). 37.     She also referred to the right to private life as protected by the Constitution, without referring to a specific Article, and other “human rights instruments”, citing Article 17 of the ICCPR, which protects privacy, honour and reputation. 38.     The contested statements read as follows: 1)     Statement by journalist A.D.: “[The applicant’s mother] was strongly affected by her husband’s death; the old lady suffered from serious depression and ended up in a psychiatric hospital.” 2)     Statement by journalist A.D.: “While the lady was being treated [in hospital], her elder daughter, Irina Rodina, apparently believing that her mother would not survive, sold for LVL   15,000 [approximately EUR   18,685] the apartment that had been privatised [and registered] in her name but which had belonged to her mother.” 3)     Statement by journalist A.D.: “[When] the mother was [released] from hospital, she would not have had a place to [stay] if she had not had another daughter, N., a son-in-law and [their] daughter.” 4)     Statement by the applicant’s sister N. Ļ.: “[The applicant’s mother] was left alone on the street like [a homeless person], without an apartment, home or anything”. 5)     Statement by journalist A.D.: “The old lady did not receive a single penny from her elder daughter for the sold apartment.” 6)     Statement by journalist A.D.: “A court forced the elder daughter to pay maintenance of LVL 20 [approximately EUR 28] per month, but she, apparently disagreeing with such a decision, requested that the court order her mother to undergo a forensic psychiatric assessment.” 7)     Statement by the applicant’s sister N. Ļ.: “[The mother] does not need legal guardianship. [The applicant] is trying to obtain it in order to avoid paying maintenance.” 8)     Statement by journalist A.D.: “Besides, there is another interesting fact. While the lady was undergoing psychiatric assessment, [the applicant] managed to arrange for a general power of attorney [to be issued by her mother]. For [the benefit of] whom? Of course, for the elder daughter, meaning that she could do anything in her mother’s name.” 39.     On 23   September 2008 the Riga City Zemgale District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It accepted the defendant’s argument that “No time for taboos” was an informative news programme, which was devoted to issues of importance to the general public, and that its content was generated by private individuals. The disputed feature was generated by those who wished to express their opinions about the applicant’s actions. It complied with the requirements laid down in the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media. Having viewed the disputed feature in the courtroom, the court held that it had contained opinions expressed by the applicant’s mother and sister which had been based on certain facts about a family dispute. The journalist had briefly provided her comments on that issue on the basis of the information received. 40.     The court analysed each of the disputed statements save for statement no.   1, in relation to which the applicant had withdrawn her claim. Statement no. 2 had reflected the journalist’s opinion, which had been based on information provided by the applicant’s mother and on the fact that the applicant had sold the apartment. Statement no. 3 had contained the journalist’s assessment of the situation, which had been made on the basis of information provided by the applicant’s sister and mother, who had expressed their opinions about what had happened. Statement no. 4 had reflected the opinion of the applicant’s sister about her mother’s living conditions. Statement no. 5 had been true. Statements nos. 6 and 7 could not damage the applicant’s honour and dignity. They had been based on the opinions of the applicant’s sister and mother. Statement no. 8 had contained a factual statement that a general power of attorney had been issued. The journalist had not suggested that the applicant had forged that document. 41.     The court concluded that the journalist and the applicant’s sister had expressed their opinions, which, in turn, had been based on facts and factual statements made by the applicant’s mother. The court reiterated that information had to be distinguished from opinions. The truthfulness of an opinion could not be verified. Everyone had the right to express their opinion freely. Irrespective of how unacceptable they might be perceived as being, opinions could be neither true nor false. For a claim to be granted under section 2352a of the Civil Law, which was the legal ground on which the applicant had relied, the following conditions had to be met: (i) the disseminated statements had to contain factual information, and (ii) that information had to be false. Those conditions had not been met in the applicant’s case. 42.     On 13 October 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued that the first-instance court had failed to analyse the context of the feature. Not only had it been offensive to her honour and dignity, but it had also directly interfered with her private life as she had never sought public exposure. The applicant contended that the journalist’s actions in recording and broadcasting their telephone conversation without her consent had been unlawful, but noted that that issue “was not directly subject to the civil law”. The applicant further reiterated that her personal data had been disclosed without her consent. In that respect, she referred to the fact that during the broadcast, the journalist had displayed the newspaper article showing her photograph, accompanied by the following subtitle: “Irina Rodina, the elder daughter”. 43.     On 28 June 2010 the Riga Regional Court in essence upheld the aforementioned judgment, but provided its own reasons for dismissing the applicant’s claim. The court accepted the defendant’s argument that “No time for taboos” was an informative news programme which was devoted to issues that were important to society. Anybody could generate content by informing the programme’s producer of any topical issues and processes in society, as well as of upsetting events and problems in their personal lives and in the lives of others. 44.     The assessment of the impugned statements by the Riga Regional Court and its conclusions largely resembled those provided by the Riga City Zemgale District Court (see paragraphs 39-41 above). The Riga Regional Court noted that at the time of broadcast the applicant’s mother had had full legal capacity and thus could express her own opinion. She had been stripped of her legal capacity only on 4   January 2006. In addition, the Riga Regional Court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that her personal data had been broadcast without her consent when the newspaper article with her photograph was shown, accompanied by the subtitle: “Irina Rodina, the elder daughter”. In that regard, the Riga Regional Court noted that the applicant’s claim in respect of the newspaper article had already been dismissed by the appellate court and that proceedings on points of law had been refused (see paragraphs   21 and 25 above), but provided no further reasons. 45.     On 9 August 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. She referred to an analytical report prepared by the Supreme Court on domestic case-law in relation to civil protection for honour and dignity (see a/s Diena and Ozoliņš v. Latvia , no.   16657/03, §§   51-52,   12   July 2007). The applicant argued that the appeal court had not assessed the various factors noted by the Court in those cases, or the impugned feature as a whole. When examining her claim about the disclosure of personal data, the appellate court had not applied the relevant provisions of the Personal Data Protection Law. She noted that the appellate court had referred to the civil proceedings concerning the publication of the article, but had failed to take into account that her name had not been disclosed in that article. 46.     On 31 March 2011 the applicant and her sister signed an out-of-court settlement in the presence of a public notary, who certified the authenticity of their signatures. The applicant’s sister admitted that statements nos.   4 and   7 (see paragraph 38 above) had offended the applicant’s honour and dignity. She had disseminated that information (along with the information published in the newspaper article) under the influence of her son-in-law, J.K. She regretted that and apologised to the applicant. She was of the view that the journalist A.D. had portrayed the family situation in an overly negative light. The applicant accepted her sister’s apology and expressed a wish to withdraw her claim and terminate the civil proceedings against her sister. She did not wish to withdraw her claims against the other defendants. 47.     On 31 March 2011 that settlement was submitted to the Supreme Court. It was added to the case material and sent for examination at a preparatory meeting. 48.     On 4 July 2011 the Senate of the Supreme Court in a preparatory meeting adopted a decision (case no. SKC-509/2011) refusing to institute proceedings on points of law on the grounds that the lawfulness of the appellate court’s judgment could not be called into question and that the case could not contribute to the development of well-established case-law. 49.     The Senate of the Supreme Court referred to its well-established case-law, whereby section 2352 1 of the Civil Law protected any assertions and statements, irrespective of whether they were considered as information ( ziņas ) or opinions. They provided the following reasons: “It stems from the Court’s case-law that an unjustified opinion can also offend one’s honour and dignity. For example, in its judgment of [24 February 1997] in the case of De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium [the Court] held that an opinion may [turn out to be] excessively offensive, in particular in the absence of any factual basis. It means that a court must establish if there were any circumstances as such or any actions taken by a victim him/herself, which might have contributed to creating such opinion. As concerns opinions that shock and disturb, [the Court] in its judgment of 1   July 1997 in the case of Oberschlick v. Austria (No. 2) held that the freedom of expression protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed but also the form in which they are conveyed. However, an opinion must not be expressed in a rude manner. Therefore, within the meaning of section 2352 1 of the Civil Law damage to one’s honour and dignity may be caused not only by disseminating false information, but also by [providing] an unjustified opinion ( nesamērīgs viedoklis ). The opinion must be deemed unjustified, if, firstly, it has no factual basis, and, secondly, it has been expressed in a rude manner ([they referred to domestic case-law, e.g., SKC-172/2005, SKC-276/2009, and SKC-198/2010]).” 50.     The Senate of the Supreme Court held that the appellate court had been right to dismiss the applicant’s claim. In establishing whether the contested opinions had been justified, the appellate court had taken into account the established facts (the sale of the apartment, the mother’s stay in hospital, the power of attorney issued by the mother, the proceedings instituted by the mother to receive maintenance, and the applicant’s application to a domestic social welfare authority). The appellate court had rightly concluded that the contested opinions had been shaped by the specific circumstances and the applicant’s actions. The Senate of the Supreme Court held that the contested opinions had been justified even though they had contained value judgments. Those opinions had not offended the applicant’s honour and dignity within the meaning of section   2352 1 of the Civil Law. The Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s argument that the appellate court had failed to examine the disputed feature as a whole. It held that the appellate court had examined all the evidence before it and had viewed the video recording of the disputed feature. 51.     In response to the applicant’s argument that the appellate court had not examined whether there had been an interference with her private life, the Senate of the Supreme Court held that the appellate court had been right not to examine the alleged interference. The applicant had brought a claim for the retraction of information which had offended her honour and dignity; she had not brought a claim in respect of an interference with her private life. The claimant had only sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage in connection with the publication of false information. Therefore, in accordance with section 192 of the Civil Procedure Law, the appellate court had not had legal grounds to examine the applicant’s arguments about the alleged interference with her private life. 52.     Lastly, the Senate of the Supreme Court did not examine the out ‑ of ‑ court settlement concluded by the applicant and her sister (see paragraph   46 above) because it did not have the competence to examine it at that stage of proceedings. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Constitution 53.     The relevant parts of Articles 89, 92, 95 and 96 of the Constitution ( Satversme ) provide: “89.     The State shall recognise and protect fundamental human rights in accordance with this Constitution, laws and international agreements binding upon Latvia.” “92.     ... Any person whose rights are violated without justification has a right to commensurate compensation ...” “95.     The State shall protect human honour and dignity ...” “96.     Everyone has the right to the inviolability of his or her private life ...” Civil Law 54.     Before the amendments of 1 March 2006, section 1635 of the Civil Law ( Civillikums ) provided as follows: “Any infringement, that is, any unlawful act which by its nature has caused damage, gives the victim the right to seek compensation from the person who has caused it, in so far as he or she may be held responsible for that act. Note: the concept of an act is understood in the broad sense and encompasses not only actions but also omissions.” 55.     After the amendments of 1 March 2006, section 1635 provides as follows: “Any infringement, that is, any unlawful act which by its nature has caused damage (including non-pecuniary damage), gives the victim the right to seek compensation from the person who has caused it, in so far as he or she may be held responsible for that act. Non-pecuniary damage should be understood to mean any physical or mental suffering resulting from the infringement ... Where the unlawful act under the second paragraph of this section takes the form of a criminal offence against the life, health, morals, sexual integrity, freedom, honour or dignity of a person, against the family or against a minor, it is presumed that the victim has suffered mental harm as a result of such an act. In all other cases the victim must prove the existence of non-pecuniary damage. Note: the concept of an act is understood in the broad sense and encompasses not only actions but also omissions.” 56.     Section 2352a (since 1 March 2006 this section has been named   2352 1 , hereinafter referred to as section 2352 1 on all occasions) of the Civil Law provides as follows: “Everyone has the right to bring proceedings to have information which offends his or her honour and dignity retracted if the disseminator of the information cannot prove that the information is true. If information that offends a person’s honour and dignity has been published in the press, in the event that such information is not true it shall also be retracted in the press. If information that offends a person’s honour and dignity has been included in a document, that document shall be replaced. In other cases a court shall determine the procedure for retraction. Anyone who unlawfully offends a person’s honour and dignity orally, in writing or by deed, shall provide financial compensation. A court shall determine the amount of such compensation.” Civil Procedure Law 57.     Section 192 of the Civil Procedure Law ( Civilprocesa likums ) lays down one of the fundamental principles of civil procedure of non ultra petita in the following terms:   “The court must rule on the subject-matter of the claim and on the legal grounds as indicated in the claim, not beyond the limits of what has been claimed.” Law on the Press and Other Mass Media 58.     Section 7(4) of the Law on the Press and Other Mass Media ( likums Par presi un citiem masu informācijas līdzekļiem ) prohibits the use of mass media for the purposes of interfering in a person’s private life; such interference must be punished in accordance with the law. Section 7(5) of that Law prohibits the publication of information that offends the honour and dignity of a person or slanders a person. Section 25 of that Law lays down obligations of journalists, which include, among others, an obligation to provide only truthful information. 59.     Under section 21(1) of that Law, as worded at the material time, persons were entitled to require the mass media to retract information published about them if that information was not true. Following the amendments of 25 November 2005 it was expressly stipulated in that Law that in “other cases” persons were entitled to require that an apology be issued. Under section 21(5), the mass media had to retract the published information if they had no proof of its veracity. In the event of a dispute, an application could be made to a court for such information to be retracted (and in other cases, after the amendments of 25 November 2005, an apology to be issued). 60.     Section 28 of that Law provides that the mass media shall compensate, in accor