Communicated on 2 March 2021 Published on 22 March 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 16421/13 Konstantin Yevgenyevich KHAFIZOV and EDITORIAL BOARD OF YUZHNYY BULVAR against Ukraine and 2 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern separate sets of judicial proceedings as a result of which the applicants were ordered to refute the statements which they had publicly made.

Mr Khafizov , the first applicant, published an article in the “ Yurzhnyy Bulvar ” newspaper, the second applicant. In the article it was stated that a certain company was unlawfully conducting construction works on a city beach. The company instituted proceedings before the commercial courts seeking to oblige the applicants to refute the information contained in the article stating that the information was false and damaged the company ’ s reputation.

According to the applicants, the courts refused to hear witnesses which could confirm that the information contained in the article was true. The courts did also not address the evidence (in particular, pictures and videorecordings ) submitted by the applicants.

The courts found against the applicants and ordered them to refute the information contained in the article. The final decision in the case was issued on 31 July 2012 by the Higher Specialised Court and sent to the applicants on 2 August 2012.

The applicants complain that the court decisions constituted unjustified interference with their rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. They also complain, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the courts ignored the evidence that they presented and refused to hear witnesses who could confirm that the information contained in the disputed article was true.

The applicant organisation is the owner of the news website www.lb.ua. In January 2012 the website published a number of articles concerning management and activities of the company Zh .

The company instituted judicial proceedings against the applicant organisation seeking refutation of the information contained in the articles and stating that the information was false and damaged the company ’ s reputation.

According to the applicant organisation, during the judicial proceedings the courts ignored its arguments even though they were relevant and important.

The courts found against the applicant organisation (the final decision was delivered by the Higher Specialised Court on 19 February 2013) and ordered it to refute the information contained in the articles.

The applicant organisation complains, invoking Article 10 of the Convention, that the court decisions violated its right to freedom of expression. It also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts ignored its arguments and their decisions were not sufficiently motivated.

The applicant is the editor in chief and the publisher of a magazine. The magazine has its own website.

In 2011 the applicant published in the magazine and on the website an article stating that organisation U. was carrying out a number of unlawful activities.

In July 2012 the organisation U. instituted proceedings against the applicant stating that the information contained in the article was false.

The first instance court found in favour of the applicant. However this decision was quashed by the court of appeal, which established that the information contained in the article was false. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the organisation U. 322 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) [1] in court fees. The applicant was also ordered to refute the information contained in the article.

On 30 January 2012 the Higher Specialised Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal in cassation. The applicant received this decision on 1 March 2013.

According to the applicant, the court of appeal and the court of cassation did not address his arguments, although they were relevant and important.

The applicant organisation complains that the court decisions violated its right to freedom of expression (Article 10). It also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the courts ignored its arguments.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see, for example, Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine , no. 72713/01, § 60, 29 March 2005)?

2. Did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Pronina v. Ukraine , no. 63566/00, 18 July 2006 and Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76 and foll ., 5 April 2018)?

APPENDIX

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of birth (if applicable) Place of Residence Nationality (if applicable)

1.

16421/13

Khafizov and Editorial B oard of Yuzhnyy Bulvar v. Ukraine

02/02/2013

Konstantin Yevgenyevich Khafizov 1985 Irpin Ukrainian Editorial B oard of Yuzhnyy Bulvar

Irpin

2.

36106/13

Kyyivskyy Instytut Problem Upravlinnya Imeni Gorshenina , TOV v. Ukraine

27/05/2013

Kyyivskyy Instytut Problem Upravlinnya imeni Gorshenina , TOV Kyiv

3.

59204/13

Derdin v. Ukraine

06/09/2013

Oleksiy Volodymyrovych Derdin Kyiv Ukrainian

[1] Approximately 29 euros.