FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34215/07
TORGOVYY DIM PETRO I PAVEL
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 26 June 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Ann Power-Forde,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 10 February 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant company, Torgovyy Dim Petro i Pavel, is the editorial board of DS-express, a newspaper registered in Ukraine. It was represented before the Court by Ms L. Pankratova, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.
The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr N. Kulchytskyy, from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
The applicant company complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the court order requiring it to retract information published in an article concerning a public official (a mayor of the city of Sumy) and to compensate the latter for non-pecuniary damage constituted an interference with its freedom of expression. It further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair in that the courts had failed to address the specific, pertinent and important arguments it had made concerning its right to freedom of expression.
THE LAW
The applicant company complained about an unfair hearing and a violation of its right to freedom of expression. It relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 10 of the Convention which provide, insofar as relevant, as follows:
Article 6
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 10
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
By a letter dated 10 February 2012 the Government submitted a declaration with a view to settling the issue raised by the present application. The declaration reads as follows:
“The Government of Ukraine acknowledge that there has been violation with the applicant’s company’s freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information and ideas within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention.
The Government of Ukraine declare that the Government of Ukraine offer to pay UAH 2,625 (two thousand six hundred twenty five hryvnias) as compensation for the pecuniary damage and 5,000 EUR (five thousand euros) as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage to the Open Joint- Stock Company “Torgovyy Dim Petro i Pavel”.
The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable, and converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. It will he payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case”.
In a letter of 17 April 2012 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had agreed with the terms of the above declaration.
In light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has now been resolved and that the resolution is based upon respect for human rights. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 39 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and the applicant’s agreement with the terms of that declaration;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy