Published on 9 August 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 7609/14
Oleg Volodymyrovych BACHUN
against Ukraine
lodged on 23 September 2011
communicated on 15 July 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application mainly concerns the applicant’s complaints regarding alleged damage to his reputation caused by the dissemination of false information and allegedly unlawful collection of information about him (Article 8 of the Convention).
From 2006 to May 2010 the applicant was a judge and the president of the Kyiv District Administrative Court.
In 2009 four parliament members published and disseminated among judges of the administrative courts and other persons a letter and a brochure alleging that the applicant conducted a luxurious lifestyle which was inconsistent with his official income. In particular, that he owned expensive property and luxury items and used private jets for travel. The brochure also contained photos of the applicant and his property collected by the parliament members. The same information was put by the parliament members on an Internet site specifically created for this purpose (www.bachun.net).
The applicant instituted judicial proceedings seeking refutation of the information contained in the letter, the brochure and the Internet site. He noted that some of this information was false and some of it was distorted. He also complained that the said information had been illegally collected by the parliament members and the photos had been obtained and published without his consent.
By its final decision of 13 April 2011 the Higher Specialised Court found against the applicant. The Higher Specialised Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts in that the members of the parliament had disseminated the letter and the brochure only among judges of the administrative courts (even though the applicant claimed that it was also disseminated among other persons) and according to the legislation, in their capacity as members of the parliament, they had a right to lodge applications with national authorities, including the courts, concerning matters of public interest. The Higher Specialised Court found that the letter and the brochure constituted such an application in the meaning of the law and for this reason could not be considered as a mere “dissemination of information”. As regards the information on the web-site, the courts found that there was no evidence that it had been put there by the respondents.
The applicant complains that the courts had failed to remedy the violation of his rights under Article 8 caused by the dissemination of the false information about him and by the publication of information and pictures which had been collected without any legal basis.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy