Essence of the decision (3-5 sentences):
The case concerns a Ukrainian editor-in-chief who was ordered to retract statements published about Ukrexpert, an association providing industrial safety services. The European Court of Human Rights found that Ukraine violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) when domestic courts ordered the applicant to retract his statements without proper justification. The Court determined that the domestic courts failed to properly distinguish between facts and value judgments and did not perform an adequate balancing exercise between protecting Ukrexpert’s reputation and the applicant’s freedom of expression.
Structure and main provisions:
1. The Court first addressed the admissibility of the complaint, rejecting the Government’s argument about the six-month time limit violation.
2. On merits, the Court analyzed whether the interference with the applicant’s rights was:
– Based on law (confirmed)
– Pursued a legitimate aim (confirmed)
– Was necessary in a democratic society (not confirmed)
3. The Court found that domestic courts:
– Failed to clearly distinguish between facts and value judgments
– Did not consider the context of the statements
– Ignored the applicant’s position as editor-in-chief
– Failed to analyze the plaintiff’s public role
– Did not perform proper balancing of competing interests
Most important provisions for use:
1. The Court emphasized the difference between the reputation of a legal entity and an individual, noting that corporate reputation lacks the moral dimension of personal reputation.
2. The Court established that an indiscriminate approach to assessing speech without distinguishing between value judgments and statements of fact is incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention.
3. The decision reinforces the principle that courts must provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify interference with freedom of expression, including proper consideration of context and the balancing of competing interests.
4. The Court awarded EUR 2,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant.
