Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Mediakompaniya Slovo, TOV and Others v. Ukraine*:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined a complaint by Ukrainian journalists and a media company concerning a court order to retract statements published in a newspaper article alleging corruption at a municipal water-supply company. The applicants argued that the order violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR found that while the order constituted an interference with freedom of expression and had a legal basis and legitimate aim, it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient. Consequently, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of one applicant, Mr Vasylenko, while striking out the application in respect of the other applicants due to the death of one and the other’s wish not to pursue the case.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The decision begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicants, their representation, and the Ukrainian Government’s representation.
* It summarizes the facts of the case, focusing on the publication of the article, the statements it contained, and the subsequent legal proceedings in Ukraine.
* The Court then addresses the striking out of the complaints lodged by Ms Vasylenko and Mediakompaniya Slovo, TOV, due to the death of one applicant and the other’s wish not to pursue the application.
* The decision proceeds to assess the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention, examining whether the interference with freedom of expression was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society.
* The Court analyzes the nature of the statements made in the article, distinguishing between statements of fact and value judgments, and defers to the domestic courts’ assessment that the statements were factual.
* The decision concludes by stating that there was no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of Mr Vasylenko, as the interference was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons, and the courts struck a fair balance between the competing interests.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Distinction between facts and value judgments:** The Court reiterated the importance of distinguishing between statements of fact and value judgments in assessing freedom of expression cases.
* **Margin of appreciation:** The decision highlights the margin of appreciation afforded to national authorities, particularly domestic courts, in classifying statements as facts or value judgments.
* **Proportionality of interference:** The Court emphasized the need for any interference with freedom of expression to be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, considering the nature and severity of the penalties imposed.
* **Public interest:** The Court acknowledged the public interest in reporting on corruption in municipal enterprises but stressed the importance of providing evidence to support factual statements.
This decision underscores the balance that must be struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, particularly in the context of reporting on matters of public interest.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine.
