Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v Latvia - 57829/00 [2010] ECHR 977 (3 June 2010)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns disproportionate interference in the right to freedom of expression of a non-governmental organisation for the protection of the environment (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant association the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

The case concerns disproportionate interference in the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, a Latvian non-governmental organisation for the protection of the environment (violation of Article 10). In 1997, the applicant association addressed to the competent authorities a formal resolution expressing its concerns about the conservation of an area of dunes along a stretch of coastline. The resolution, which was published in a regional newspaper, contained, inter alia, allegations that the local mayor had facilitated illegal construction work in the coastal area. The mayor brought an action for damages against the applicant, claiming that the statements in the resolution were defamatory. The Talsi District Court found that the applicant organisation had not proved the truth of its statements and ordered it to publish an official apology and pay damages to the mayor for publishing defamatory allegations. That decision was upheld by the Kurzeme Regional Court and the Supreme Court.

The European Court held that applicant’s allegations describing the mayor’s conduct as “illegal” amounted to a value judgment on a subject of public interest, not exceeding the limits of permissible criticism of a public figure. The Court noted that in view of the relatively wide powers conferred on mayors by Latvian legislation, criticism of a mayor for the policy of an entire local authority could not be regarded as an abuse of the freedom of expression. The Court accordingly found that the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s freedom of expression were not necessary in a democratic society.

The applicant made no claim in respect of pecuniary damage before the European Court. The Court awarded the applicant association just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In these circumstances, no individual measure seems necessary.

The judgment of the European Court was translated and published in the official periodical Latvijas Vēstnesis and in the annual report of the Government Agent’s Office as well on several internet sites. It was sent out to all judges and included, with comments, in the training programme for judges.

Furthermore, the Latvian authorities have provided examples of domestic case-law concerning defamation cases which took into account the requirements of the Convention in the field of freedom of expression. In particular, in two cases, the national courts have proceeded to a more thorough evaluation as regards the distinction to be made between value judgments and statements of fact.

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, above the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Latvia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	3 000 EUR	1 000 EUR	4 000 EUR
Paid on 06/08/2004

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Vides Aizsardzibas Klubs v Latvia - 57829/00 [2010] ECHR 977 (3 June 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/977.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 977