NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

The distinction between statements of fact and value judgments is relevant for procedural and evidentiary reasons. 814 This principle is also applicable to the right to communicate information and ideas. It is clear that Article 34 NGOs may also be holders of opinions, which are later communicated to the public in the form of newspaper articles or other publications. 815 Freedom to impart information and ideas The exercise of the freedom to impart information and ideas allows free criticism of the government, 816 which is the main indicator of a free and democratic society. The Court reiterated, in a number of cases, 817 its constant position that in a democratic society, public officials must accept that they will be subject to public scrutiny and criticism. This position is also reflected in the Committee of Ministers Declaration on freedom of political debate in the media . 818 The media plays a special role in this process, 819 insofar as it is necessary to ensure transparency and the responsible exercise of their functions. It has been the Court’s constant position that the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to a government official in the course of performance of his or her functions than in relation to a private citizen. 820 This burden is also placed on all well-known persons. 821 The freedom to receive information and ideas is complementary to the freedom to impart information and ideas. It is of importance with respect to printed media, 822 as well as to broadcast media. 823 Concerning the second, the Court held that states may not intervene between the transmitter and the receiver, as they have the right to get into direct contact with each other according to their will. 824 814 SMET, p. 215. 815 For example, the cases Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr v. Ukraine , no. 16695/04, 15 July 2010, Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia , no. 14087/08, 28 March 2013 and Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe v. Russia , no. 27570/03, 21 December 2010. 816 Freedom of expression in Europe . Case-law concerning Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human rights files, No. 18. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2007, p. 25. 817 Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia , no. 25968/02, § 45, 31 July 2007, and, as a classic authority, Castells v. Spain , 23 April 1992, § 46, Series a no. 236, Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe , cited above, § 47. 818 Declaration on freedom of political debate in the media. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 February 2004 at the 872nd meeting of the Ministers‘ Deputies. 819 Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland , no. 55120/00, ECHR 2005-V (extracts). 820 OOO Ivpress, cited above. 821 See, for example, Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (no. 2) , no. 10520/02, 14 December 2006 and MGN Limited, cited above. A contrario – Verlagsgruppe News GmbH and Bobi v. Austria , no. 59631/09, 4 December 2012. 822 The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) , 26 April 1979, Series a no. 30. 823 Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, ECHR 2013 (extracts). 824 Groppera Radio AG, cited above.

152