CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 77 July-August 2005 Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.) - 28743/03 Decision 5.7.2005 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Criticism of an author's work in a local newspaper, and refusal of the newspaper to publish the reply of the author: inadmissible   The applicant is an author whose works were criticised by a local newspaper in two articles which underlined, inter alia , the dubious literary and linguistic quality of his books. The applicant sent a reply to the newspaper harshly criticising the person that had written the reviews, who was also a writer. The newspaper rejected to publish his reply. The applicant then instituted proceedings claiming compensation for the material and moral damage caused by the publication of the articles. The courts, at three instances, found against the applicant as the articles had been written in the form of a book review in which the author expressed his personal opinion about the quality of the applicant's literary work. Moreover, the newspaper's refusal to publish the applicant's objections had been justified because the applicant's reply had contained obscene and abusive remarks on the reviewer. The applicant complained that the newspaper's refusal to publish his reply raised an issue under Article 10. Inadmissible under Article 10: The Court considered that the right of reply, being an important element of freedom of expression, fell within the scope of this provision. However, this article gave no unfettered right to have access to the media. Whilst as a general principle private media should be free to exercise editorial discretion in deciding whether to publish or not letters of private individuals, there could be exceptional circumstances in which a newspaper could legitimately be required to publish a retraction or apology. In the present case, the applicant was able to submit his reply to the newspaper but he went beyond simply replying to the criticism by making obscene and abusive remarks about the critic. Moreover, it appeared that the applicant had been invited to modify his reply but had failed to do so. The applicant also had the opportunity of establishing his right of reply before the domestic courts. The Court had not found any element of arbitrariness in the decisions of the domestic courts. Accordingly, there had been no failure on the part of the authorities to comply with its positive obligation to protect the applicant's freedom of expression and the exercise of his right of reply: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes