Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Vides Aizsardzības Klubs against Latvia

(Application No. 57829/00, judgment of 27/05/2004, final on 27/08/2004)

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

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

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

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)57

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Vides Aizsardzības Klubs against Latvia

Introductory case summary

 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.

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a)  Details of just satisfaction

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

b) Individual measures

 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.

II.	General measures

 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.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

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