Communicated on 16 April 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 54574/10 Larysa Viktorivna ARTEMENKO against Ukraine lodged on 9 September 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Larysa Viktorivna Artemenko , is a Ukrainian national who lives in Kremenchuk. She is represented before the Court by Ms L.L. Pankratova , a lawyer practising in Kyiv.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 16 April 2009 the applicant, a journalist, published an article in the Kremenchuk Telegraph ( К ременчуцький телеграф ) newspaper about a city stadium which had been built as a training ground for “ Kremin ” football club, whose honorary president was Mr. B., a member of the Parliament of Ukraine. The article included the following text:

“ Member of Parliament [B.] has received a new toy - almost his own stadium in the city park . The stadium will be the home stadium of “ Kremin ” football club, whose honorary president is the member of parliament mentioned. Mr. [B.] managed to obtain one million Ukrainian hryvn i as from the city budget for the stadium ’ s construction.”

Mr. B. lodged a claim for defamation with the domestic courts seeking rectification of the following information:

“Member of Parliament [B.] received a new toy - almost his own stadium in the city park.”

Mr. B. also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 1 , 000 hryvnias (UAH) (around 80 euros (EUR) at the material time).

On 14 October 2009 the Kriukivskyy Local Court of Kremenchuk partly allowed Mr. B. ’ s claim: it found the information presented in the article untruthful and ordered the applicant to publish a rectification of the information. The court, however, rejected Mr. B. ’ s claim for damages. On 16 December 2009 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. On 9 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by a final ruling, upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

In particular, the domestic courts found that the article contained the allegation that Mr B. was the owner of the stadium as he had been closely connected with its construction and maintenance, even though there was no evidence that he owned any part of it.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of her right to freedom of expression.

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?