CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 août 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2C7B3542 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0000ff } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   466 10.8.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LYASHKO v. UKRAINE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Lyashko v. Ukraine (application no. 21040/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Oleg Valeriyovych Lyashko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Kiev. He was the editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian daily newspaper Polityka . The periodical has now ceased publication.   In 1997 the applicant published four newspaper articles.   The first article was entitled “ Durdintsovshchina ” and described the dismissal of Mr A. Stoginenko, the President of the Black Sea Shipping Company, a State-owned enterprise. The applicant alleged that Mr   Durdynets, who was acting Prime Minister at the time, dismissed Mr Stoginenko because of his involvement in financing Polityka .   In the second article entitled “Save the barbed wire, citizen Durdinets” the applicant stated that Mr Durdinets had personally instructed the General Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against him.   The third article, “The Rogue and the General” concerned the alleged relationship between General G., at that time the Chief of the Odessa Regional Police Department, and a certain Mr S., who was reported to have been involved in criminal activity. The applicant’s newspaper also published several photographs in which the police chief and Mr S. were pictured together. It appears that those pictures were made during a private event and were subsequently published by the paper and TV media.   In the fourth article entitled “The Rogue and the General turn out to be relatives”, the applicant recounted the interview of a certain Ms K. to a local TV station to the effect that the Chief of Police and Mr S. were distant relatives.   In July 1997 the General Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with intentional defamation in print, with making unfounded accusations of committing a serious crime and with abusing his position of power. In June 2001 Minsky District Court of Kyiv, considering all four articles, found that the applicant, abusing his office, had intentionally published false statements aimed at defaming the police in revenge for a certain unspecified previous conviction. The court sentenced the applicant to a two years’ suspended prison sentence and barred him from working in media management for two years. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. The sentences were however not carried out as the first two offences were decriminalised and the third one was time barred.         2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 April 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 Contrary to the Government’s arguments, the Court found that the information contained in the articles concerned a matter of public interest and that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant deliberately intended to damage the reputation of those concerned or the police force in general.   The Court held that the applicant’s assertions that M Stoginenko was dismissed because of personal bias on the part of Mr Durdynets were value judgments used in the course of public debate which were not susceptible of proof. As to the alleged meeting between Mr Durdynets and the General Prosecutor described in the second article, the Court found that, given the GPO’s involvement in the applicant’s case, his statement could not be considered as devoid of any reasonable foundation. Moreover, the very scene of the alleged meeting was described in sarcastic and broad terms and could have been understood by readers as having been presented with a degree of exaggeration.   As to the third and forth articles, the Court found that the applicant was essentially reporting what was being said by others, or what could be reasonably inferred from the events that had undisputedly taken place. In so far as the applicant was required to establish the truth of his statements, he was, in the Court’s opinion, faced with an unreasonable, if not impossible task.   The Court accepted that all four articles were framed in particularly strong terms. However, having regard to the fact that they were written on matters of serious public interest and concerned public figures and politicians, the Court was of the opinion that the language used could not be regarded as excessive.   The Court found that the applicant’s conviction and sentence to two years’ imprisonment and a prohibition on occupying posts in media management, imposed following a trial lasting several years, could have had a considerable “chilling effect” on the applicant’s freedom of expression, which could not be said to be substantially mitigated by the decision of the appeal court, given the fact that his conviction was upheld in substance and that he was not punished at least partially because of procedural reasons and partly due to the decriminalisation of the imputed offences in the new Criminal Code.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court came to the conclusion that the interference complained of was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press Contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.