CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s666DA881 { width:279.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s827E2BE9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA859D5EA { margin:0pt 41.85pt 0pt 42.55pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCDABDDB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }   1 February 2011   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20473/07 by Kateryna Ivanivna GRANOVSKA against Ukraine lodged on 24 April 2007   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Kateryna Ivanivna Granovska, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Novoukrayinka, Ukraine. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 8 June 2006 the newspaper “Pravda Ukrainy” (« Правда України ») published the applicant’s letter. According to the applicant, she owned a small shop in the 1990s but was forced to close it following numerous allegedly unlawful fines imposed on her by the tax authorities. In particular, the applicant complained that a certain tax inspector M. had continually abused her power in respect of the applicant, borrowed money from her without returning it, and so on. The letter contained the following paragraph: “For years I have asked for protection in the region and in Kyiv. But all my letters were returned again and again to the district tax office and were answered by a deputy head, S., who is a very close friend of M. That’s why I received answers from everywhere – “facts were not confirmed”. The applicant also wrote that the head of the local tax inspectorate, Ch., had used his official car for his personal needs and that some of the applicant’s acquaintances had paid him 200-300 United States dollars in bribes. On 26 June 2006 Ch. and S. instituted civil defamation proceedings against the applicant in the Novoukrayinsky District Court. They complained that although only their initials had been used in the letter, it was still possible to identify them as their positions and place of work was mentioned and the initials used corresponded to the first letters of their family names. On 5 September 2006 the court found in the claimants’ favour. It held that despite the fact that the applicant had used only the claimants’ initials in her letter, the claimants were the only head and deputy head of the district tax office and were easily unidentifiable. The article contained information that S. was protecting M., who was her friend, and that Ch. used his official car for his personal needs and some people paid him money. However, the applicant failed to provide any explanations in this respect. Therefore, the court found that the published information was untrue and defamatory and ordered the applicant to retract the allegations and to pay each of the claimants 1,700 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH), around 250 euros (EUR) at the material time. The applicant appealed. In particular, she noted that the cited above paragraph contained true information and was a value judgment. On 8 November 2006 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and adopted a new one. The court held that the applicant’s allegations were negative and that, under the law in force, they were to be considered untrue unless the contrary was proved. In the court hearing the applicant said that she had no evidence in support of her accusations. The court ordered the applicant to pay UAH 1,700 (EUR 250) to each of the claimants in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 7 February 2007 the Supreme Court refused the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains of a violation of her freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. She further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Supreme Court should have quashed the decisions of the lower courts. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, in respect of allowing S.’s defamation claim?