. Accordingly, it was the task of the national authorities to strike a fair balance between the journalist's right to freedom of expression on the one hand and the public prosecutor's right to the protection of his reputation on the other. However, in the text of the judgments adopted by the domestic courts the Court does not discern any evidence that they performed such a balancing exercise. They confined their analysis to the importance of the protection of the public prosecutor's interests without giving any consideration to the Convention standard which requires very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on debates on questions of public interest initiated by members of the press (see, among other authorities, Godlevskiy v. Russia, No. 14888/03, § 41, 23 October 2008). The Court therefore finds that the domestic courts failed to recognise that the present case involved a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of a reputation.
29. As regards the reasons adduced by the domestic courts to justify the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression, the Court observes that they did not accept the applicant's argument that the impugned excerpt was a value judgment, but considered it to be a statement of fact by the applicant, insinuating that B. had behaved unlawfully, which the applicant had failed to prove. When rejecting the applicant's argument, the domestic authorities did not examine the question whether the excerpt could be considered a value judgment. Nor did they specify what objective evidence could be used to prove whether the impugned excerpt was true or false. The Court notes in this respect that the assessment of whether a certain statement constitutes a value judgment or a statement of fact might in many cases be difficult. However, under the Court's case-law even a value judgment must be based on sufficient facts in order to constitute a fair comment under Article 10 (see, for example, Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, No. 39394/98, § 40 in fine, ECHR 2003-XI).
30. In the excerpt under consideration, the applicant suggested that a political union existed between the town hall and the regional prosecutor's office. He drew this inference from a number of facts, such as the institution and outcome of criminal proceedings against certain politicians, the allocation of furniture and vehicles to the prosecutor's offices, and a long-term land lease for the regional prosecutor on favourable conditions. The Court notes that the truthfulness of all the premises on which the applicant had based his allegation was confirmed in the domestic proceedings. Criminal proceedings were indeed brought against certain members of the regional government, the member of the town legislature K. B. did receive a plot of land under the conditions indicated by the applicant, and the Saratov town hall did put at the disposal of the prosecutor's offices a Hyundai car, six tables and nine filing cabinets (see paragraph 11). Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's assumption that the "perks" for the prosecutor's office and the regional prosecutor himself were not incidental had a sufficient factual basis. There is nothing to suggest that it was made otherwise than in good faith and in pursuit of the legitimate aim of promoting public awareness of the political situation in the region and the part played by the regional prosecutor in it.
31. The Court finds that, by alluding to the town hall's "gratitude" towards the regional prosecutor the applicant made a value judgment the truthfulness of which was not susceptible of being proved true or false. Accordingly, the domestic courts placed an excessive burden on him when imposing a requirement to prove its veracity.
32. Lastly, the Court notes that the applicant did not resort in the excerpt under considerati
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
