Communicated on 6 July 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 55830/07
Yuriy Ivanovich ANDRETSOV
against Ukraine
lodged on 7 December 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yuriy Ivanovich Andretsov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Slovyansk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unknown date in 2002 the applicant received a telephone call from journalist Z. who asked the applicant about his relations with his son. She did not inform the applicant that she needed this information for publication and declined the applicant’s proposal to meet in person and continue that conversation.
On 17 October 2002 the newspaper “Press-Obozrenie, TV plus” published an article by journalist Z. which described a conflict between the applicant and his son. The article described the life of the family, indicating where they lived, mentioning that the applicant’s wife had died when the son had been 12 and that the applicant’s son married and his wife came to live with them, that the relations were good until the applicant met another woman and she also came to live in their apartment. According to the article, the applicant sold their apartment and made his son’s family move into a house which he had allegedly bought for them. When they moved in the house in question, it turned out that the applicant had never bought it and its owner made them move out. As their former apartment had been sold, they were left without home and had to move into a little house of the parents of the wife of the applicant’s son. According to the applicant’s son, the applicant refused to buy him any apartment and threatened him with the police if he insisted. According to the applicant’s description of events, as published in the article, he let his son and his family live in their apartment for three months but they did not pay communal fees. The applicant also told the journalist that if he bought an apartment to his son, he was not sure that the latter would not sell it and waste the money. According to the article, the applicant said that he loved his son as much as he hated him. The journalist went on suggesting that the conflict was not about home, but about destruction of family ties and that money became more important than love. In conclusion the journalist invited the applicant to give a chance to his son.
The applicant was named under his real forename and patronymic only, but his son was named under his real surname, which is the applicant’s surname as well. The article was also accompanied by a large photograph of the applicant’s son with his wife and child.
The applicant instituted libel proceedings in the Slovyansk Town Court against the newspaper and journalist Z. for damages. He maintained that the article interfered in his private and family life, that it had been published without his knowledge and that it contained a lot of factual inaccuracies. He claimed 1,700 hryvnias (UAH) from the defendants.
On 12 March 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s claim. It relied on the fact that the issue raised in the article had been brought about by the applicant’s son who had come to the newspaper of his own motion. Questioned by the court, the applicant’s son confirmed that all published facts were true. The journalist stated that she had informed the applicant that the purpose of their earlier telephone conversation had been preparation of the article about him and his son. The court concluded that there was no interference in the applicant’s private life by the newspaper and the journalist and the published facts were just moral and ethic problems that were not subject to refutal.
On 8 November 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court. It also noted that the published facts had been true and that the publication had not interfered in the applicant’s private life.
On 7 August 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention that the newspaper interfered in his private and family life and the domestic courts failed to protect him from that interference.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the way in which domestic courts dealt with the case ensure sufficient and effective protection of the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Gurguenidze v. Georgia, no. 71678/01, §§ 58-64, 17 October 2006; and Jalbă v. Romania, no. 43912/10, §§ 27-44, 18 February 2014)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy