Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Unjustified civil sanctioning of eyewitness for statement of fact made in good faith to media, on circumstances of a road accident of public interest, through application of �presumption of falsity� • Requiring applicant to prove truthfulness of good faith statement in the circumstances inconsistent with principles laid down in Court�s case-law • Domestic courts� failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons • Inappropriate and severe penalties (public retraction, considerable damages and travel ban until full payment)
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� Georges Ravarani , President , ��������� Carlo Ranzoni, ��������� Mārtiņ� Mits, ��������� St�phanie Mourou-Vikstr�m, ��������� Mar�a El�segui, ��������� Mattias Guyomar, ��������� Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
the application (no. 46396/14) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (�the Convention�) by a Ukrainian national, Ms Alla Anatoliyivna Udovychenko (�the applicant�), on 17 June 2014;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.