CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s556D3942 { width:152.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 16421/13 Konstantin Yevgenyevich KHAFIZOV and EDITORIAL BOARD OF YUZHNYY BULVAR against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 6   November 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President ,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Vahe Grigoryan , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   16421/13) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 February 2013 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Konstantin Yevgenyevich Khafizov and the Editorial board of Yuzhnyy Bulvar, a legal entity incorporated under Ukrainian law, (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr S.A. Zayets, a lawyer practising in Irpin; the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by the Acting Agent, Ms Olga Davydchuk, of the Ministry of Justice; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the applicants’ complaints that national courts ordered them to retract statements which they had made in a newspaper article. The applicants relied on Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 13 of the Convention. 2.     According to the information set out in the application form, Mr   Khafizov (“the first applicant”) was the author of a disputed article published by the Yuzhnyy Bulvar newspaper (“the second applicant”), of which he was the owner and the editor in chief. 3.     In May 2011 the second applicant published the disputed article without indicating its author. Several days later, the same article was published on the website www.alupkame.info. The article accused a certain company (“the company”) of unlawfully degrading part of a public beach by digging a pit to obtain gravel. 4 .     The first part of the article stated that on 10 May 2010 deputies of the Alupka City Council had visited the public beach in question for a meeting with local inhabitants, who had sent them a number of written complaints concerning the state of the beach and who had made a number of suggestions as to how address the issue. The inhabitants pointed out that instead of reinforcing the beach, the company was unlawfully constructing a multi ‑ lstorey building and changing the configuration of the beach by digging a pit. The first part of the article also contained the following statements (“the first statement”): “Local inhabitants assert that the [company] has taken gravel from the public beach for use in its construction works.” 5 .     The second part of the article, concerning an event of 11 May 2010, contained the following statement (“the second statement”): “[After the deputies left,] the [company] excavated a pit on the public beach to procure gravel for its construction works, ruining that part of the beach! Naturally, the company did not have authorisation for such ‘improvements’.” 6.     The third part of the article, concerning events of 12 May 2010, stated that a new commission, comprising deputies of the city council and the mayor, had visited the beach and listened to complaints made by local inhabitants. This part of the article stated: “as local inhabitants have learned, [the company] was ... excavating gravel to create its own beach ...”. It further stated that the mayor had told the local inhabitants that he had sent complaints to the relevant authorities about the “unlawful construction works” conducted by G., the owner of the company. The mayor also said that he would be “looking for grounds to terminate the [land] rent agreement in so far as the pit on the beach [was] concerned.” 7.     The fourth part of the article, concerning the events of 13 May 2010, contained the following statements (“the third, fourth and fifth statements”): “[The company] probably does not have all the documents required for the construction work, and for this reason, it avoids communication with the authorities.” “... Progress of events [on the beach]: [the company], acting without authorisation, dug a pit on the beach, [and] used gravel [from the beach] in its construction. In this way [the company] degraded the beach and caused damage to the town.” “The local authorities hired an excavator to fill in the pit on the beach [dug by the company]. The excavator was subsequently unable to leave the beach as employees of [the company] started throwing themselves under the excavator. They had probably been asked to do so by the director [of the company] [G.], ...” 8 .     The company instituted proceedings before the Crimea Commercial Court seeking an order for the applicants to retract the second, third and fourth statements and part of the fifth statement, namely the part “started throwing themselves under the excavator”. The company stated that the information was untrue and damaged its reputation. Before the court the applicants stated that the company’s claims were unfounded. According to the applicants, they submitted to the court photos and videos proving that the information in the articles was true. The case-file does not contain any evidence that such photos and videos had actually been submitted. 9.     On 9 November 2011 the Crimea Commercial Court ordered the applicants to retract the information and to pay court fees. The court did not question the fact that the public beach in question had been degraded and that people had thrown themselves under the excavator. It pointed out, however, that the applicants had failed to prove that the company had been involved in any of those events or that the people who had thrown themselves under the excavator had been the company’s employees. The court therefore ordered the applicants to retract the second and fourth statements and the disputed part of the fifth statement. The first applicant was ordered to publish a retraction on the website and the second applicant was ordered to publish the same retraction in one of its forthcoming issues. The court further ordered the applicants to pay the company 22,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (approximately 1,997 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the company’s claims were dismissed. 10 .     The applicants appealed, asking the appeal court to hear from eyewitnesses to the events who could confirm that G., the director of the company, had taken gravel from the public beach for use in construction work. The case file contains a copy of the request with a stamp proving that it had been received by the court of appeal. The applicants also asked the court of appeal to address the photos and videos allegedly contained in the case-file (see paragraph 8 above). 11.     On 14 May 2012 the Sevastopol Commercial Court of Appeal upheld the part of the first-instance judgment ordering the second applicant to publish a retraction of the second and fourth statements, as well as the part of the fifth statement. The Court of Appeal held that the first applicant was not the owner of the website and, therefore, closed the proceedings against him. It also quashed the part of the first-instance judgment ordering the applicants to pay compensation to the company. Instead, the court ordered the second applicant to pay the company UAH 336 (approximately EUR 31) in court fees. 12.     On 31 July 2012 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment in respect of the second applicant but quashed it in respect of the first applicant and remitted that part of the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. It found that the Court of Appeal had failed to properly establish the identity of the owner of the website. 13.     On 10 October 2012 the Crimea Commercial Court declined to examine the company’s claims against the first applicant, holding that it was impossible to establish whether he was the owner of the website. 14 .     Under Article 32 of the Code of Commercial Procedure (Chapter V “Evidence”), as worded at the material time, courts based their decisions on written and material evidence, findings of forensic experts, explanations of parties and of other participants of court proceedings. As of 15   December   2017, Article 32 was replaced by Article 66 which stipulates that a court can question as witness any person familiar with the facts relevant to consideration of a case. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 15.     The applicants complained that the domestic courts’ decisions constituted an unjustified interference with their rights guaranteed by Article   10 of the Convention. They also complained, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, that the courts had not considered the evidence that they had submitted (photographs and videos) and had not heard witnesses who could have confirmed that the information contained in the disputed article was true. At the same time, the applicants acknowledged that, under Article   32 of the Code of Commercial Procedure, it was essentially impossible to examine witnesses in the commercial proceedings. Therefore, even if the domestic courts considered the applicants’ request to call witnesses, they could not be heard because this type of evidence was not admissible. The applicants were thus deprived of the opportunity to use witness testimony and to effectively defend themselves against the company’s action. Alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention 16.     The Government submitted that the courts’ decisions were based on the national legislation and had pursued legitimate aims envisaged by Article   10, in particular the protection of the rights of others. The Government noted that the disputed statements published in the article were statements of fact that the applicants had not supported them with evidence. 17.     The applicants submitted that the interference had not been based on law, because the national legislation did not differentiate between the right of reply and the right to obtain a retraction. The interference had not been proportionate because the courts had obliged the applicants to retract not only the accusation that it had been the company which had degraded the beach, but also the fact that the beach had been degraded at all. The imposition of the burden of proof on the applicants had been disproportionate. The courts’ refusal to hear witnesses had undermined the applicants’ ability to support their statements with evidence. 18.     The Court does not see any reason to doubt that the interference was based on law and pursued a legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. It remains to be established whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society. 19.     The Court reiterates that t he press plays an essential role in a democratic society. Although it must not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others, its duty is nevertheless to impart – in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities – information and ideas on all matters of public interest. Not only does it have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also has a right to receive them. Were it otherwise, the press would be unable to play its vital role of “public watchdog” (see Thoma v. Luxembourg , no.   38432/97, § 45, ECHR 2001-III). 20.     The Court considers that in the present case the question is whether the courts disproportionately restricted the applicants’ right to impart information to the public about the alleged degradation of a public beach by the company, which undoubtedly constituted information of public interest. 21.     The Court observes that the disputed publication comprised several parts. The second applicant was ordered to retract several sentences; however, the remainder of the article, which in essence contained the same information as the disputed sentences, was not the subject of court proceedings and was not retracted. Therefore, the information set out in the first part of the article, containing the first statement, alone, even without the second and fourth statements and the relevant part of the fifth statement, still clearly conveyed to the reader the idea that a degradation had been caused to the public beach by the company. The Court also notes that the courts ordered the second applicant to pay the equivalent of EUR 31 to the claimant company in expenses, a sum which cannot be considered excessive. 22.     The Court thus considers that, even though the courts interfered with the applicants’ rights under Article 10 of the Convention by ordering them to retract certain parts of the article concerned, the applicants were still able to convey information of general interest to the public, which is one of the aims of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court concludes that the interference was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and that, accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. Alleged violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention 23.     The Court observes that the case-file does not contain evidence that the applicants did actually introduce the photos and videos, they rely on in the present application, with the first instance court or the Court of Appeal. 24.     As regards the applicants’ request to call witnesses, the Court notes that it was not addressed in any of the court decisions available to the Court and no reasons were provided to refuse their request or to leave it without examination. At the same time, the applicants themselves admitted that, under the Code of Commercial Procedure as worded at the material time (see paragraph 14 above), this type of evidence was not admissible. However, the applicants were not precluded from obtaining written statements from those witnesses and to submit them to the courts as “written evidence” envisaged by the Code of Commercial Procedure. 25.     In sum, having regard to the link between the applicants’ Article 10 complaint and their complaint under Article 6 concerning the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings leading to the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, the Court arrives to the conclusion that the latter complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 26.     Lastly, it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, given that the requirements of that Article are absorbed by the more stringent requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Grzęda v. Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, §   352, 15 March 2022). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 27 November 2025.     Martina Keller   Andreas Zünd   Deputy Registrar   President