CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 juillet 2007

.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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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   505 12.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT A/S DIENA AND OZOLIŅŠ v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of a/s Diena and Ozoliņš v. Latvia (application no. 16657/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of a judgment against the applicant company by the Latvian courts for the publication in 1998 of articles that allegedly defamed the then Latvian Minister for Economic Affairs.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant company a/s Diena 10,292   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Akciju sabiedrība (a/s) Diena, a Latvian limited company which publishes the daily newspaper with the largest circulation in Latvia ( Diena , “The Day”), and Mr Aivars Ozoliņš, a Latvian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Riga. Mr   Ozoliņš, who is a journalist, was employed by the applicant company as a political commentator.   Between 28 March and 25 August 1998 Diena published 53 news articles in connection with the privatisation of the company a/s Ventspils nafta. This company, specialising in the oil trade, was based in Ventspils, a port on the Baltic Sea and a major hub for tanker traffic.   Diena thus published seven articles by Mr Ozoliņš criticising Laimonis Strujevičs, Minister for Economic Affairs and Chairman of one of Latvia’s most prominent political parties. The Minister was accused by the applicants of abuse of authority and bribery. According to them, Mr Strujevičs, by virtue of his position in the Privatisation Agency, had participated in the drafting of a regulation which would result in a loss to the Public Treasury of eight million lati (about twelve million euros) for the benefit of a/s Latvijas naftas tranzīts, a private oil company in the a/s Ventamonjaks consortium, of which he had been finance and economic director shortly before being appointed minister.   Mr Strujevičs took proceedings in the Court of First Instance for the Zemgale district of Riga, complaining of defamation and seeking an award of damages against the applicants. At the end of the proceedings, the Riga Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 3 June 2002, ordered the applicant company to pay Mr Strujevičs the equivalent of EUR 9,100 by way of compensation. It further ordered the publication in Diena of a retraction concerning four of the seven articles in question.   On 14 September 2002, the Supreme Court Senate dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 May 2003 and declared admissible on 30 November 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10, the applicants complained about an order requiring the applicant company to pay damages for the publication in 1998 of articles written by Mr Ozoliņš allegedly defaming the then Latvian Minister for Economic Affairs.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court considered that the judgment in issue had constituted interference with the right of both applicants to freedom of expression, that interference being prescribed by Article   2352(a) of the Civil Code and pursuing the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or rights of others.   The Court then had to consider whether that interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”. In this connection it first noted that the offending articles had concerned a sensitive matter of public interest, namely the privatisation of a major State-owned commercial corporation and the conduct of the minister responsible for overseeing the process.   In their respective capacities as publishing company of the leading Latvian newspaper and as journalist, the applicants had thus exercised the role of “watchdog” which the press performed in a democratic society. That role certainly entailed a duty to alert the public where the press was informed about presumed misappropriation on the part of local elected representatives and government officials. Moreover, the Court observed that the articles concerned Mr Strujevičs in his capacity as a public figure, and that, the limits of acceptable criticism thus being wider than in the case of a private individual, he had to display a greater degree of tolerance towards such criticism.   The Court noted that the Latvian Government had not disputed the main facts: that the political party chaired by Mr Strujevičs had financial ties with certain oil companies based in Ventspils; that, shortly before he took office as minister, he had been a managing director of an oil company belonging to an economic consortium in Ventspils; that once he had become a minister he had attempted to promote a draft regulation aimed at changing the means of payment used in the privatisation process for major corporations; that this draft had been declared unlawful and that Mr Strujevičs himself had been obliged to revoke it; that the company bidding for the take-over had previously made a request to the Privatisation Agency seeking the same result as that of the draft regulation, but that the request had been turned down.   Mr Ozoliņš had been accused of inferring from these facts that Mr Strujevičs, driven by a personal interest, had attempted to misuse his authority for the benefit of certain economic stakeholders. Such a conclusion, concerning the possible motives and intentions of others, constituted a value judgment and not a statement of fact whose existence could be demonstrated. The journalist’s value judgment had been based on information reported to the general public and subsequently discussed widely in the press, in government circles and in parliament, and the Court failed to see what further clarification he could still have provided as regards the facts on which his articles were based.   Whilst the language used by Mr Ozoliņš had admittedly constituted a personal attack on Mr   Strujevičs, it could not be regarded as completely excessive because the journalist had provided an objective explanation for his remarks. The Court moreover found that, in this field, political invective often spilled over into the personal sphere, such being the hazards of politics and the free debate of ideas, which were the guarantees of a democratic society.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that by publishing the impugned articles the applicants had not overstepped the bounds of journalistic freedom. It therefore held that 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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 Convention, 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.