Communicated on 1 2 May 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 48534/10 Irina RODINA against Latvia lodged on 17 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Irina Rodina , is a Latvian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Riga . She is represented before the Court by Mr J. Marins , a lawyer practising in Riga .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Disputed article

3. On 31 January 2005 the newspaper Čas ( Час ) published an article entitled “ An apartment antagonised a family” (“ к вартира рассорила семью ”). The article was also published on the the newspaper ’ s Internet site.

4. The article, written by A.P., stated that the applicant had taken her mother to a psychiatric hospital and in the meantime sold her mother ’ s apartment. After her mother ’ s health improved , the applicant refused to take her from the hospital or to support her. While the applicant herself had been a doctor, her mother could not afford to buy medicines. The applicant ’ s mother had been advised to bring a claim for financial support against the applicant in the competent courts. The applicant, on the other hand, had lodged a request seeking that her mother be recognised as legally incapable .

5. The article noted that A.P. had contacted the applicant on the phone regarding the situation in the family. The applicant, however, had refused to comment and requested that her name not be published.

6. The article was accompanied by a photograph of the family showing the applicant, her mother, husband, son, sister and her sister ’ s daughter, and the mother ’ s husband.

2. Court proceedings

7. On 10 November 2005 the applicant brought proceedings against the publisher before the Riga City Centre District Court ( Rīgas pilsētas Centra rajona tiesa ). The applicant requested that certain passages in the article be declared untrue and that the publication of her family ’ s photograph and personal data be declared unlawful. She further sought an order requiring the publisher to retract the untrue information and publish a written apology for having published it. She also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

8. On 6 June 2007 the Riga City Centre District Court partly granted the applicant ’ s claim. It reasoned that the applicant was not a public figure subject to wider limits of acceptable interferences with private life. The article had been tendentious and offensive, and had contained identifying information. Furthermore, it had been accompanied by the photograph. The applicant ’ s right to private life had therefore been infringed. The District Court ruled that certain passages in the article were untrue and violated the applicant ’ s right to respect for her reputation and honour .

9. On 27 May 2009 the Riga Regional Court ( Rīgas apgabaltiesa ) quashed the aforementioned judgment of the District Court and dismissed the applicant ’ s claim. The Regional Court reasoned that the impugned passages in the article reflected an opinion. They therefore could not be regarded as untrue and had not damaged the applicant ’ s honour. The Regional Court further found that the photograph was neutral and its publication had not damaged the applicant ’ s honour.

10. On 18 February 2010 the Senate of the Supreme Court ( Augstākās tiesas Senāts ) upheld the aforementioned judgment of the Regional Court and refused the review on points of law.

B. Relevant domestic law

11. Article 96 of the Constitution ( Satversme ) enshrines the right to respect for private life, home and correspondence (see Mentzen v. Latvia ( dec. ), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII).

COMPLAINT

12. The applicant complain s under Article 8 of the Convention that the Latvian courts failed to protect her from the publication of the article, accompanied by the photograph, and therefore violated her right to respect for her private life. The applicant relies also on Article 10 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

2. Was the balancing exercise undertaken by the domestic courts in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court ’ s case-law (see, for example, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08 , ECHR 2012 )?