Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 64
May 2004
Vides Aizsardzības Klubs v. Latvia - 57829/00
Judgment 27.5.2004 [Section I]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Award of damages against an association for the protection of the environment following its criticism of a mayor and its denunciation of administrative malpractice: violation
Facts: The applicant association is a Latvian association for environmental protection. It adopted a resolution addressed to the relevant authorities expressing its concerns about the conservation of an area of dunes along a stretch of coastline. The resolution, which was published in a regional newspaper, contained, inter alia, allegations that the chair of the district council, I.B., had signed illegal decisions and certificates, thus facilitating illegal construction work in the area of the dunes, and had deliberately failed to comply with instructions to halt the work. The resolution asked the relevant authorities to carry out checks. The Environmental Protection Act authorised non-governmental organisations to give their views on this subject and to issue requests to the relevant authorities. Checks were carried out and several instances of illegal activity were detected in the municipality in question. I.B. had provided a statement with “erroneous details” of the distance to the sea, which had enabled a building to be constructed inside the protected area. I.B. claimed that the statements in the resolution were incorrect and brought an action for compensation against the applicant organisation, requesting the publication of an official retraction. The relevant court found in favour of I.B. The court of appeal, to which the applicant association appealed, found that there was no proof that I.B. had illegally signed documents facilitating illegal building work in the dunes. Even if I.B. had provided a document containing incorrect references to distance, the municipality had nonetheless itself undertaken to put an end to the violation; as the impugned document was considered a collective decision of the district council, it could not engage I.B.'s personal responsibility. Consequently, the court of appeal gave judgment against the applicant association. The Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant association.
Law: Article 10 – The order to pay damages, made against the applicant association in a civil action, constituted interference with the exercise of its right to freedom of expression. This interference, prescribed by law, had been grounded on the protection of “the reputation and rights of others”. The Court had therefore to determine whether it had been necessary in a democratic society. The resolution had been intended to draw the relevant authorities' attention to a sensitive matter of public interest, namely malpractice in an important sector managed by local government. As a non-governmental organisation specialising in this field, the applicant association had thus fulfilled the role of “watchdog” conferred on it by the Environmental Protection Act. Like the role of the press, such participation by a voluntary association was essential in a democratic society. In order to fulfil its mandate, an association had to be able to report facts that were likely to interest the public and thus contribute to transparency in the public authorities' actions. The applicant association had further complied with its obligation to demonstrate the truth of the factual allegations for which it had been criticised. Bearing in mind the relatively wide powers conferred on mayors by Latvian legislation, and the particular scope of the limits of acceptable criticism of a political figure, the fact of criticising the mayor for the policy of the local authority as a whole could not be described as abuse of freedom of expression. In addition, the description of I.B.'s behaviour as “illegal” was a value judgment and its truthfulness could not be proven. Finally, the Government could not seriously argue that the applicant association had in substance accused I.B. of having committed a criminal offence, and it would be completely contrary to the purpose and spirit of Article 10 of the Convention to grant the national authorities a right to interpret the applicant association's spoken or written statements improperly, thereby giving them a meaning that had clearly never been intended. In short, the reasons put forward by the Government did not suffice to demonstrate that the interference complained of was “necessary in a democratic society”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy