Vasyl Filipchuk lost his lawsuit against journalists: investigations into his ties with the occupiers will remain in the media space
The court recognized the right of journalists to report on the associate of the former fugitive president Yanukovych and owner of the publication "Apostrophe," Vasyl Filipchuk, who actively collaborated with the occupiers.
This decision concerns the investigation conducted by "European Pravda," which Filipchuk and his accomplices attempted to influence.
In the now distant year of 2020, the main topic of the Munich Security Conference for Ukrainians was that at this prestigious international forum, they attempted to impose a "reconciliation plan" favorable to Russia, which suggested that Ukraine would make unacceptable concessions and even compromise its identity.
For most, this story has long faded into the past; however, for "European Pravda," it continued until now due to a legal process regarding our publication mentioning this plan.
"European Pravda" wrote extensively about this document three years ago; we especially recommend reviewing the summary article "Behind the Scenes of the Munich Conspiracy". At the time, the fact that this plan was presented in Munich as having Ukrainian co-authorship caused significant outrage. Indeed, the document stated that among its developers, alongside representatives from Russia, were Ukrainian experts (whose notoriety now, with the beginning of the large-scale war, is unquestioned) – two former diplomats Vasyl Filipchuk (owner of the publication "Apostrophe") and Oleksandr Chalyi, as well as Chalyi’s associate Oleksiy Semeniy.
The latter two experts were not overly concerned, being long known for their pro-East views, and Semeniy even publicly promoted the idea of Eurasian integration of Ukraine.
In contrast, Filipchuk (although he also had a history of actions considered pro-Russian by some) was, as it turned out, irritated by the mention of his name in the context of the "Munich plan."
Eventually, he sent a demand to "European Pravda" through his lawyer not to mention his name in the context of his collaboration with Russians and to remove these references from published materials. We, of course, refused to censor our existing publications.
The editorial’s satirical response to Vasyl Filipchuk was a column by EP editors titled "The One Who Denies Cooperation with Russians".
And then there was a lawsuit against the editorial team.
The alleged co-author of the "Munich plan" asked the court to compel EuroPravda to retract the mention of him, and in addition, to collect "moral damages in the amount of 100,000.00 UAH" from the editorial office, since he believed that the information was spread "exclusively with the aim of discrediting him."
The case proceedings occurred during the pandemic and were seriously delayed because of it, and then the full-scale invasion began... However, the case eventually reached a decision, a copy of which EuroPravda received this week.
We won completely. All claims by Vasyl Filipchuk, the owner of the publication "Apostrophe," were dismissed. Furthermore, the court noted that Filipchuk’s demands contradicted European principles of freedom of speech.
"The decision is exemplary in quality. The judge extensively refers to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights; proving why the "European Pravda" article is an example of how media performs its function, even when using satire," said Oksana Maksymenyuk, head of the legal department at the Institute for Regional Press Development, who supported EuroPravda in this process.
Indeed, this court decision is positively impressive.
It speaks to the need "to distinguish between statements regarding facts and evaluative judgments, taking into account the circumstances and the overall tone of the expressions," and that in matters of public interest, media have every reason to resort to assessments.
"As can be seen from the case materials, the security conference in Munich, where the organizers unveiled a ’plan to end the war in Ukraine,’ prepared by a group of co-authors, including the Russian Council on International Affairs (a state-affiliated expert center), with three experts from Ukraine participating in the plan’s development, one of whom is Vasyl Filipchuk, the owner of ’Apostrophe’... This plan, due to its proposal for a redefinition of Ukrainian identity, sparked wide public discussion," the court concludes, recalling that Filipchuk never denied his co-authorship of this infamous plan and did not distance himself from it.
However, special attention is required for the statement Filipchuk demanded to refute.
The point is, that as the basis for the lawsuit, he eventually chose an article that helped prevent his appointment to government structures.
In the spring of 2020, EuroPravda published a text about the challenges facing the government’s system for coordinating European integration. One reason for its appearance was that EP received information about attempts to push for the appointment of notorious former officials to the government, including – yes, you guessed it – Filipchuk. The fragment of the article pointing this out caused the claimant’s principal objections.
This phrase read: "Imagine a specialist like Vasyl Filipchuk, repeatedly noted for collaborating with Russians, wins the competition for the top position in the state for coordinating European integration. Would this be acceptable? The question is rhetorical."
The court, on the other hand, determined that "such reflections by the authors of the article... are a satirical form, voiced in the form of a rhetorical question and a possible development of events." From all of this, the court concluded: Vasyl Filipchuk asks to refute evaluative judgments that, in principle, are not subject to refutation – neither under Ukrainian legislation nor under international legal principles established by the Council of Europe.
Thus, the lawsuit by the owner of "Apostrophe," Vasyl Filipchuk, against "European Pravda" was dismissed as unfounded.
However, besides the joy from this decision, there is also a sad conclusion.
We can rejoice that now the court has allowed the unveiling of the fact that some public figures collaborate with Russians and rejected the possibility of censoring this; we can take pleasure in the increased understanding that this collaboration is toxic... But despite the full-scale war, not everyone supports this view yet.
Indeed, another co-author of the notorious "Munich plan," Oleksandr Chalyi, is still a respected expert for the authorities, and last year he even became a member of the official Ukrainian delegation for negotiations with Russia.
Therefore, media still require special attentiveness to the proposals that arise and to those from whom they originate.
"European Pravda" will continue to fulfill this socially important mission, even when it annoys the subjects of the publications – right up to court claims against us.
Коментарі:
comments powered by Disqus
