CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 February 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 46928/07 Oleg Mykolayovych GOLUBENKO against Ukraine lodged on 23 October 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression: the domestic courts found that some information contained in an article written by the applicant, a journalist, and published in the newspaper “УкраїнаBusiness” was untruthful. The courts ordered the applicant to publish a rectification and to pay redress for non ‑ pecuniary damage in the amount of 10,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (around 1,540 euros (EUR) at the material time). The disputed information concerned corrupt practices in which the governmental official in charge of the department responsible for forensic examination was allegedly involved. The last judgment in the applicant’s case was rendered by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 30   March 2007. The applicant raises his complaint under Article   10 of the Convention. The question is whether the alleged interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate to this aim, and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient and, in this respect, whether the domestic courts made a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments (see for instance Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine , no.   72713/01, §§ 41-43, 29 March 2005). QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention?