FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF MEDIAKOMPANIYA SLOVO, TOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Application no. 22347/14)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG10 July 2025 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Mediakompaniya Slovo, TOV and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Andreas Zünd, President, Mykola Gnatovskyy, Vahe Grigoryan, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the application (no. 22347/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 7 March 2014 by three applicants (“the applicants”), whose relevant details are set out in the appended table. They were represented by Mr S.A. Zayets, a lawyer practising in Irpin;the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by Ms Marharyta Sokorenko, of the Ministry of Justice;the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE1. The application concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 10 of the Convention that domestic courts ordered them to retract statements published in a newspaper.2. The application was lodged by the company Mediacompaniya Slovo, Mr Vasylenko and Ms Vasylenko. Mr Vasylenko was the director of Mediacompaniya Slovo and also the editor-in-chief of the Subbota Plus newspaper published by Mediacompaniya Slovo. Ms Vasylenko was the editorial director of the Subbota Plus newspaper.3. On 21 March 2013 Mr Vasylenko wrote an article called “Drained profitability of [V.]” which was published in Subbota Plus. In the article Mr Vasylenko suggested that there were corrupt practices at V., a large municipal water-supply company. The article contained the following statements:“Today it is difficult to obtain [fresh] information about the financial situation at [V.] financial reports have not been published on its website since I.O. became the director [of V.]. But it appears that I managed to uncover the reason for [V.]’s problems and this reason looks like embezzlement.... the documents which [certain workers at V.] provided demonstrate that there was an embezzlement and squandering of tens of millions of [State] money.... However, starting from the summer of 2012, when [V.] was de facto managed by a new team, the withdrawal of funds from the enterprise resembled an avalanche. Many new suppliers were contracted and, sometimes, contracts were entered into with intermediary companies instead of the actual suppliers, leading to the former receiving an [unreasonable amount of] [State] budget money.... However, [this same] enterprise does not have money to improve the working conditions of its employees.... [Under just two heads of expenditure] private enterprises pocketed two million hryvnias of State money over several months.... Do not let yourself be comforted by insignificant volume of ‘profit’ under certain heads. Because, I must reiterate, there are hundreds of those heads. And in total they amount to tens of millions of hryvnias flowing from the [State] budget into private pockets – without much effort on the part of the owners of those pockets.... By the way, we should take note of the companies that sold goods to [V.] for inflated prices ... Many of them (such as Z. and D.) appeared in the list of suppliers at the same time as the new management [started running V.]... [V.] de facto uses money from the [State] budget.... the difference between the price of buying and selling was pocketed by another ‘right’ person, not by [V.]. That is to say that [V.], which according to officials barely makes ends meet, gave 16 million as an interest-free loan to a private person.... [Employees of V.] are also saying that fraud was being committed during renovation works at [V.]. For example, second-hand parts were used instead of new ones. Water pipes that are acquired for renovation works are often [unlawfully sold] instead of being installed....There is no guarantee that the State money was not ‘spent’ on the storage items that had already been sold.... It should be mentioned that [V.] has at its disposal premises which are more than sufficient to store the biggest pipes. And the storage of those pipes in other warehouses can be explained by the desire of [V.’s] management to ‘help’ the owners of those warehouses with money.... [In the words of V. employees:] Some ‘watchmen’ – a fashionable word – arrived. At first they oversaw [company T.] and then moved to [V.] Now they are working on both T. and [V.]. By the way, at company T. things with supplies are going no better than at [V.].... From June to December of the last year 20-25 million hryvnias were pumped out of V.... [Officials responsible for ensuring the legality of State budget expenditures] are now sitting in [V.]. They were ordered not to touch anything, not to get involved in anything. They come in in the morning, drink coffee and do not actually check anything. And then they sign a piece of paper saying that everything is all right. And the employees don’t say anything because they are afraid. And in fact what is the point of saying anything – you will only inflict trouble on yourself while the management will get away with everything. There were people who spoke up about problems, about inflated prices. Some of them were fired; others were demoted....When the new director of [V.] arrived, he obliged all the heads of departments ... to write requests for voluntary dismissal. So that they would be ‘on a hook’ ...... But those who tried to suggest such [new] technologies to [V.] and the town administration were sent packing ... It’s easier to sit back and keep embezzling.... Renovation works ... were not carried out. Many buildings have cracks, windows need replacement, roofs are leaking ...... The parasites at [V.] enrich themselves not only by ‘right’ purchases from the ‘right’ people.... it is highly probable that [V.] decided to [obtain money] from entrepreneurs.... It is funny that right after my official request ... the advertisement ... was removed from the website.... On 11 March all 107 security guards of [V.] were invited to write requests for voluntary dismissal ...... Installation [of a party of new equipment] was carried out in a hectic manner ... After installation the employees [simply did not know how to handle them]. The necessary maintenance of this equipment has not been carried out since 2008.... [The equipment bought in Europe] ... turned out to be of the kind which the Europeans themselves do not use.... Now new equipment has to be bought but the management of [V.] are not choosing the [best] model, even though among staff members there are experts who could choose it. The ‘right’ suppliers [without sufficient expertise] arrived. It is almost sure that the equipment will be bought from these suppliers, probably not without a sweetener.... The management was informed about the problems with [the new equipment]. But nothing was done to remedy the situation.... Today [V.], the company that supplies water for hundreds of thousands of [people] and filters the sewage of a huge city[,] is on the verge of [bankruptcy]. The reason for this is the corruption, irresponsibility, lack of professionalism and moral bankruptcy of the management of [V.].”4. In April 2013 V. instituted judicial proceedings against all three of the applicants seeking a retraction of the statements quoted above and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In their submissions to the domestic court the applicants argued that the statements had been value judgments which were not susceptible of proof, that the information contained in the statements had not been negative and that it had not been clear from the article that the information in it referred to V.5. On 17 June 2013 the Zhovtnevyi District Court of Zaporizhzhya found against the applicants. The court examined each of the disputed statements and found that they had been statements of fact. The court further found that the applicants had not proved that those statements were true. It obliged the applicants to retract the information and to publish the operative part of court’s judgment in the next issue of Subbota Plus. It also prohibited them from disseminating the information contained in the above statements “... by any possible means (on the television or in printed media, on the radio, on the internet, in interviews, in conversations with any person, or by any other means).” Lastly, the court ordered the applicants to pay V. 1 Ukrainian hryvnia (UAH) in respect of non-pecuniary damages and UAH 458 (approx. 42 euros) in respect of court fees. The court relied, in particular, on Article 278 of the Civil Code as in force at the material time[1].6. The applicants’ appeals against the decision of 17 June 2013 were rejected (final decision of the Higher Specialized Court of 9 September 2013).7. According to the Government, the writs of execution in respect of the court decisions against the applicants were never submitted to the Bailiffs Service for execution.8. Ms Vasylenko died on 28 June 2020. Moreover, on 29 March 2023 Mr Vasylenko informed the Court that Mediacompaniya Slovo did not wish to pursue the application with the Court.THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTStriking out the complaints lodged by Ms vasylenko and Mediacompaniya slovo9. The Court observes that in the course of the proceedings, Ms Vasylenko died and Mediacompaniya Slovo expressed its wish not to pursue the application. It further observes that no heirs wished to pursue the application instead of Ms Vasylenko.10. In the light of foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention, decides to strike the part of the application in respect of Ms Vasylenko and Mediacompaniya Slovo out of its list.Alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention11. The remaining applicant, Mr Vasylenko, complained that the court decisions in the present case had violated his rights under Article 10 of the Convention.12. The Government’s observations were not included in the case file as they were lodged out of time. In their comments on the applicant’s just satisfaction claims, the Government submitted that the court decisions had been based on law, pursued a legitimate aim – namely the protection of the reputation of V. – and were necessary in a democratic society. The Government noted that the Civil Code allowed the courts to prohibit a party from disseminating untrue information by any means.13. The applicant maintained his complaints. He submitted that the domestic court decisions had not been based on law because Ukrainian legislation did not permit a court to prohibit the dissemination of information “by any possible means”. In fact, he argued that the relevant domestic legislation, so Article 278 of the Civil Code, only allowed courts to prohibit future publications or to seize copies of a newspaper which had already been published.14. The Court notes that the complaint of Mr Vasylenko is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.15. The Court considers that the judicial decisions constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. In order to be compatible with Article 10 of the Convention, such interference must be prescribed by law, pursue one or more legitimate aims in the light of paragraph 2 of Article 10, and be “necessary in a democratic society” (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 121, 17 May 2016). The test of necessity requires the Court to determine whether the interference corresponded to a “pressing social need”, whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient. In carrying out its supervisory role the Court’s task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their margin of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see, for example, Lykin v. Ukraine, no. 19382/08, § 25, 12 January 2017).16. The Court is prepared to accept that the interference had a legal basis in domestic law, specifically in Article 278 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 5 above), which envisages that “a court may prohibit the dissemination of the relevant information”. The Court further accepts that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, namely the good name of V. The Court reiterates that a State-owned company could have an interest in protecting its business reputation. It further reiterates that there is an interest in protecting the commercial success and viability of companies for the benefit of shareholders and employees, but also for the wider economic good. Protection of public confidence in the quality of the provision of vital public service by State-owned or administered companies is decisive for the functioning and economic good of the entire sector (see Heinisch v. Germany, no. 28274/08, § 89, ECHR 2011 (extracts) and Marunić v. Croatia, no. 51706/11, §§ 41 and 47, 28 March 2017).17. Turning to the content of the disputed statements, the Court reiterates that a distinction must be drawn between the statements of fact, amenable to proof, and value judgments. The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible to proof. The classification of a statement as a fact or as a value judgment is a matter which in the first place falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities, in particular the domestic courts (see, for example, Eigirdas and VĮ “Demokratijos plėtros fondas” v. Lithuania, nos. 84048/17 and 84051/17, § 95, 12 September 2023).18. The Court sees no reason to depart from the finding of the domestic courts that the disputed statements constituted statements of fact. It accepts that corruption in a large municipal enterprise is a matter of utmost concern to the public. Not only does the press have the task of imparting such information but the public also has a right to receive it (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 83, 9 April 2009). However, the Court does not consider that the serious public interest in the subject matter could dispense the applicant from his obligation to prove the statements of fact which he had made. In this connection, the Court discerns no strong reasons which would require it to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts in so far as it concerns a lack of evidence supporting the disputed statements.19. The Court reiterates that, in assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed are also factors to be taken into account (see, for example, Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 78, ECHR 2004-VI). The Court notes, in this respect, that the amounts which the applicant was ordered to pay (see paragraph 5 above) were rather modest. The order to retract the information, to publish the operative part of the court’s judgment and to abstain from disseminating the disputed information by any possible means do not appear unreasonable or unduly restrictive of the applicant’s freedom of expression.20. In conclusion, the Court is satisfied that the disputed interference was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that the courts struck a fair balance between the applicant’s interest in free speech, on the one hand, and V.’s interest in protection of its reputation on the other hand, thus acting within their margin of appreciation.21.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 10
Outcome: no_violation