|
| |
 |
| |
SAND CASTLE: A home built in the dunes on the Gulf of Riga
is an example of the type of construction at the heart of the lawsuit.
Photo: JEANNETTE GOEHRING |
The Riga-based Vides Aizsardzibas Klub (VAK) won a free-speech case against the Latvian
state in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) this May. The group’s victory in Strasbourg
drew praise from advocacy groups all over Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) as it reinforced their
right to publicly criticise officials.
The ECHR held unanimously that Latvia violated Article 10 on freedom of expression of the European
Convention on Human Rights. A panel of seven judges awarded VAK — an affiliate of Friends
of the Earth Europe — EUR 4,000 for nonpecuniary damage and court costs.
VAK, whose name translates as the Environmental Protection Club, filed its complaint with ECHR
in May of 2000. In November 1997 the general meeting of VAK adopted a resolution expressing its
concerns about the conservation of coastal dunes on the Gulf of Riga. The resolution stated, “The
situation was caused by the irresponsible and illegal acts of the Mersrags County Council. The
chairperson of Mersrags County Council signed illegal documents, resolutions and certificates,
thus facilitating illegal construction in the dunes, and deliberately disregarded the instructions
of the Environment Department of the Ventspils Region which required cessation of illegal construction.”
At the same general meeting, VAK requested a rescinding of “illegally adopted resolutions”
and an assessment of whether the chairperson and her secretary were “qualified for their
positions.” The resolution was published in the regional newspaper Talsu Vestis.
The county chairperson sued VAK for spreading false information and demanded a retraction of
its charges and LVL 500 (today’s equivalent of EUR 755) in restitution. The Court of First
Instance for the District of Talsi found in favour of the chairperson, saying that VAK had not
proven its charges and ordered it to publish an official apology and pay damages. That judgment
was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court of Kurzeme. The Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed
an appeal by VAK in February 2000.
The case against VAK was a typical strategic lawsuit against public participation, according
to Stephen Stec, head of the Environmental Law Programme at the REC. Such lawsuits cripple the
democratic process by discouraging citizens from sticking up for their rights or acting as “watchdogs”
over government agencies, he said.
The background of this case was the absolutely corrupted court system of Latvia, according
to VAK’s representative in the case and the group’s vice-president at the time, Janis
Matulis. Latvian courts ignored VAK’s evidence, including statements from the Prosecutor’s
Office and Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development, the body that oversees
the cities’ handling of environmental matters, Matulis told green HORIZON.
“The Latvian courts decided what we should think and ordered us to retract our statements
— something we could not accept,” Matulis said.
In Strasbourg, the ECHR determined that VAK’s purpose had been to draw public attention
to an issue deserving public attention, namely mismanagement of an important sector by local authorities.
As an advocacy group with a relevant specialty, VAK had assumed its role as “watchdog”
under the Environmental Protection Act. This kind of participation by an association is essential
in a democratic society, the court ruled. To perform its task effectively, VAK needed the freedom
to impart information of interest to the public, give its assessment and thus shed light on public
authorities’ activities.
VAK has been roundly vindicated, and not just in Strasbourg. Higher authorities in Latvia followed
up on the group’s charges and found that the county council had broken the law in several
instances. Two officials were punished, and the local government received an official warning
in the matter.
|
