Characterization of political person as a failure, harp and tyrant. The conviction of the accused by a civil court violates the freedom of expression.
JUDGMENT
Lykin v. Ukraine (no. 19382/08) 12.01.2017
SUMMARY
Freedom of expression. Political criticism. The case concerned a defamation claim made against the ap0plicant by a local politician. The plaintiff, during a district council, read publicly a letter in which he referred to the politicians’ failures and described him as a “rifle” and “a petty tyrant”. The affected politician saw the act as defamatory and brought him before civil courts. Based in particular on Article 10 (Freedom of Expression), the applicant complained that the national courts had unlawfully and unjustifiably restricted his freedom of expression from the judgment against him concerning the class of defamation. The ECtHR found that Article 10 of the ECHR was infringed.
USE
The criticism of public persons, such as politicians, even with descriptions such as “failed”, “harp”, “petty tyrant” is legitimate in the context of freedom of expression and politicians must tolerate it.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Vladimir Lykin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Molodetske, in the Donetsk Region (Ukraine). The case concerned a defamation claim made against him by a local politician.
On 28 January 2007 Mr Lykin, at the time a member of the Shakhtarsk District Council and president of the local branch of the Party of the Regions, read out a letter at a local meeting. In attendance were over 40 party members and inhabitants of the village of Zolotarevka. The letter criticised the appointment of the then Deputy President of the Shaktarsk District Executive Committee. It listed a number of purported failings of the local politician, and stated that he was “a grabber and a petty tyrant”.
The local politician then instituted civil proceedings against Mr Lykin, claiming damages for the dissemination of defamatory information. In September 2007 the Shaktarsk Court upheld the
complaint, awarding the claimant 200 Ukrainian hryvnias in damages. In particular, the court held that the letter should have been treated as an anonymous application by citizens within the meaning of section 5 of the Citizens’ Applications Act, and that Mr Lykin had acted unlawfully by making it public without verifying its serious accusations. The Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on appeal, and in January 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected Mr Lykin’s request for a cassation appeal.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Lykin complained that by finding against him in the defamation proceedings, the domestic courts had unlawfully and unfairly curtailed his right to freedom of expression.
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,300 (costs and expenses)
