 |
Point of View
|
 By Victoria Sumar
Today Vecherniy Kharkiv daily and Status quo online edition came out with a report that police officers had suffered bodily injuries as a result of a search operation at the apartment of Vyacheslav Ismaylov.
Actually, the both editions referred to a press release issued by the ministry of the Interior saying “when the above-cited citizen was informed through the house intercom we had to proceed with a search, he began uttering some obscenities and said he would use a firearm, if police officers approached his apartment”.
“Thus, we took a decision to call “Berkut” special force unit officers with the intent to force the entry door. The operation was conducted in presence of search witnesses and a representative of the local government body.
“As the apartment was searched, the journalist’s behaviour, as well as this one of his sons and wife was cynical, they used bad language, threatened the police officers with a physical violence and dismissals from the ministry of the Interior.The police officers recorded all that on video”. Frankly, it is hard to imagine how some unarmed persons could threaten the armed cap-a-pie “Berkut”-men with a physical violence.
Our journalist who is investigating the Klymentyev’s case now, was present at the scene. He said several times they called an ambulance for Ismaylov's wife, in order to prevent syncope. Not only she was unable to threaten anybody, she could not speak, as she was shocked by such a number of masked men armed with Kalashnikovs assault rifles.
There were five “Berkut”-men for each person in the apartment, and these brave soldiers, as it was found out, suffered physical violence… Ismaylov was crying they tried to plant some white powder to his apartment, the journalists heard it. And today the police reported they did find drugs in the apartment…
So, I would like to ask these men with shoulder straps, who had signed this press release, and maybe this is a naïve question: have you ever heard what honour is?
All this smells a bad movie. But, unfortunately, this is Ukraine's reality. This is a semi-criminal state where human rights is nonentity, where nor law, neither legitimacy exist. This is a country where its citizens are totally unarmed in front of the arbitrary rule of those who are supposed to protect them. This is Ukraine in 2010.
Is this Ukraine for people? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 02 July 2008 |
The Kyiv mayor and council elections are now a history with several lawsuits and an incident of journalists detained at a polling station. The newly elected “old” mayor of Kyiv Chernovetsky proved his title of the press enemy. At the press briefing on May 27, journalists were not permitted to ask questions again.
The Prosecutor General of Ukraine issued a scandalous ruling to finish criminal proceedings against ex-MP Oleg Kalashnikov.
Journalists killed – 0
New data on journalists killed and missing:
Gongadze case
12-05-08 The Supreme Court of Ukraine is to begin considering an appeal of Mykola Protasov, convicted of killing journalist Georgiy Gongadze, on June 17, 2008, Interfax Ukraine quotes Protasov’s lawyer Viktor Chevguz as saying. Mr. Chevguz has filed before an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine against the verdict, issued by the Kyiv appellate court on the case of his client, Mykola Protasov.
The defender says the Supreme Court of Ukraine has to cancel the count, based on Article 166 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine of 1960, brought against Mykola Protasov, saying the convicts conspired to kill journalist Georgiy Gongadze. To date, this appeal remains the only one filed by the lawyers of the convicts, who were found guilty in murdering the journalist.
March 15, 2008, the Kyiv appellate court sentenced three actual killers of journalist Georgiy Gongadze – Mykola Protasov, Valeriy Kostenko and Oleksandr Popovych – to 13, 12 and 12 years in jail respectively.
The convicts and their lawyers had a month to appeal the verdict.
Mr. Popovych, who had given a written undertaking not to leave Kyiv for the time of the trial, was arrested in the court room. His sentence started on March 15, 2008, the moment he was taken into custody.
Mr. Protasov was sentenced to 13 years in jail, the maximal sentence of the three defendants, for the total of the crimes he had committed. His sentence started on February 28, 2005, when he was taken into custody.
Mr. Kostenko’s time in jail – 12 years – also started in 2005.
The court stresses in the verdict Kostenko, Protasov and Popovych acted in agreement, fulfilling instructions of their boss, ex-chief of the Surveillance Department Oleksiy Pukach, currently pursued by police. His case has been investigated separately.
The court held closed sessions bringing the indictment, interrogating the defendants and examining the court materials, labeled as top secret. The press was not permitted to attend the sessions.
Journalists arrested and detained: 0
Journalists beaten, attacked, intimidated: 3
6-05-08 Unknown persons broke into the office of Lviv newspaper Subotnia Poshta. They stole two new computers, a laptop and other office appliances, ZIK reports.
The burglars broke two doors (one of them of the director’s office) and unlocked the grate, Subotnia Poshta’s editor-in-chief Igor Hulyk said. The burglars forced open the safe in the director’s office, leaving documentation inside however. As he commented on the version of the police, Mr. Hulyk said: “The law-enforcement agents haven’t shared their ideas with me. But personally I believe somebody must have tried to prevent the newspaper’s new format color publication. But I hope we together with the newspaper team will see our intents implemented in June”.
When asked whether he suspected any of Subotnia Poshta’s competitors of having robbed the office, Mr. Hulyk said. “Not only competitors. For example, a new professional team has come. It starts critically examining the realities in the city. There are lots of interpretations of the incident”.
28-05-08 One of the burglars, that had broken into the office of Subotnia Poshta, was detained. The burglar turned out to be “a policeman, who has already been fired”, the newspaper editor-in-chief told IMI. The police have also detained a 38-year old ex-convict from Lviv. The police are currently holding an investigation into his criminal actions.
Subotnia Poshta is published in an ordinary regime, in a new color A-3 16 pages format.
***
16-05-08 In Donetsk, newspaper Ostriv’s journalist Igor Nezhurko, assistant with MP Hennadiy Zadyrko, was beaten by the Griffin unit guards. Spokespeople for the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc in Donetsk region told UNIAN, Igor Nezhurko attended a trial in the Voroshilovsky court as a journalist. The trial was not announced as closed, but the judge ordered the press to leave the court room. After the journalist asked for explanation, the Griffin unit guards, instructed by the judge, threw him out of the court room and beat him up.
Mr. Nezhurko had introduced himself as an assistant for a Member of Ukrainian Parliament and journalist, provided the documentation to prove it before, but it did not produce any effect on the guards, the spokespeople for the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc say.
Igor Nezhurko is reported to have been inflicted brain concussion and numerous bruises. He, being unconscious, was taken by ambulance to hospital next to the court. Having received first medical aid, the journalist was denied admission to the hospital as he did not have a registered address in Donetsk. Igor Nezhurko’s colleagues took him home, to Horlivka, where his state grew worse.
Spokespeople for the Tymoshenko bloc report, one of the Griffin guards also seized the journalist’s mobile phone.
New data on journalists, beaten, attacked, intimidated
20-05-08 The Kyiv prosecutor closed a criminal case on the incident between TV channel STB’s camera crew and ex-Member of Ukrainian Parliament Oleg Kalashnikov (the Regions party), says a resolution of the Kyiv prosecutor addressed to cameraman Volodymyr Novosad, Ukrainska Pravda reports.
“With this, we inform you that the investigative department of the Kyiv prosecutor’s office has closed the criminal case, in which you have been found a victim, over absence of crime in the act”, the resolution says.
The investigation was biased, Mr. Novosad said.
“I saw an investigator who worked on our case was biased. He would refuse to register evidence, given by the witnesses that proved our version of the incident. Based on it, I can tell all he wanted was close this case asap”, Mr. Novosad said.
The ruling was dated April 10, 2008, but the cameraman received it only on Monday, May 19.
July 12, 2006, a group of members of the Regions party, led by MP Oleg Kalashnikov, impeded STB’s camera crew to work at the Verkhovna Rada building. They forced the camera crew to give away the cassette and attacked the journalists.
July 14, the Pechersk prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings on the fact of impediment to practice journalistic profession.
On the same day, journalists started collecting signatures under the letter to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Below see the text of the letter.
Open Demand
To Prosecutor General of Ukraine Oleksandr Medvedko
July 12, 2006, a group of people, including the then Member of Parliament Oleg Kalashnikov (the Regions party) impeded the TV channel STB’s camera crew to work, disrupted taking the footage and beat the journalists. July 14, 2006, the Pechersk prosecutor of the capital instituted criminal proceedings on this fact under Article 171 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – impediment to practice legal journalistic profession.
April 10, 2008, the Kyiv prosecutor closed the case “over absence of crime in the act”.
We, the undersigned journalists, demand that the Prosecutor General examine the situation and provide public report as to why the explicit facts were ignored by the investigators and persons guilty in beating the journalists were not punished.
July 12, 2006, when shooting the footage, STB’s journalist Margaryta Sytnyk was pushed rudely, and cameraman Volodymyr Novosad was beaten. The cassette with the footage was seized, the video camera damaged. The Kyiv Forensic Bureau registered medium bruises the cameraman had been inflicted, while the doctors of the Kyiv city clinical hospital diagnosed him with brain concussion. Later, this diagnose was confirmed by the doctors of the private clinic Medicom.
A parliamentary investigative commission, comprised mostly of representatives of the then parliamentary coalition, examined some the case materials. Members of Parliament found crime in Oleg Kalashnikov’s actions. The majority of MPs in the session hall, including members of the Regions party, supported the conclusions of the parliamentary investigative commission.
In July 2006, over a thousand journalists signed an open demand to take the persons, guilty in beating the journalists, to court. We believe it can be done by reinstituting the criminal proceedings and passing the case to court.
21-05- 08 The National Commission for freedom of expression and information sphere development under the President of Ukraine expressed concern about closing the criminal case on the attacking TV channel STB’s camera crew, a.k.a. Kalashnikov case.
“A number of alarming facts of journalists’ rights violation have been recently registered in Ukraine. In most cases, representatives of the media are impeded to practice journalistic profession. In its turn, it limits the right of society to information, one of the fundamental human rights ensuring stable existence of civil society and democracy”, the National Commission said in a statement, made public on May 21.
“One of such incidents is MP Oleg Kalashnikov having impeded TV channel STB’s journalists to work on July 12, 2006. The Pechersk prosecutor of Kyiv instituted criminal proceedings on the fact under Article 171 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. April 10, 2008, the Kyiv prosecutor closed the case “over absence of crime in the act”. Back in July 2006, President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko stressed he believed it unacceptable when a Member of Parliament impeded journalists to practice their profession and supported a unite reaction of representatives of mass media to the grave incident at the Verkhovna Rada building”, the National Commission says.
The National Commission for freedom of expression and information sphere development under the President of Ukraine recommends the Prosecutor General of Ukraine to report publicly on the investigation into the incident under the law of Ukraine and in accordance with international press freedom standards.
Impediment to practice journalistic profession, censorship: 2
25-05-08 The police detained Taras Bodnar and Mykola Kindzersky, journalists of a newspaper, published by the All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda, at polling station 53 in Kyiv, LIGABusinessinform reports.
“The journalists, who had come to carry out their professional duty – monitor the voting and prepare a report for our newspaper – did not have time even to enter the polling station when the police demonstrated they couldn’t help taking the journalists to the police department to identify them”, newspaper editor-in-chief Halyna Myts said.
The journalists showed their professional licenses, she said, which however produced no impression on the police. The chair of the election commission reportedly demanded “to take representatives of Svoboda’s edition as far from the voting station as possible”. It took the police three hours to identify the journalists at the police department.
***
27-05-08 STB’s journalist Sergiy Andrushko, who asked the mayor of Kyiv Leonid Chernovetsky for comment after a press conference, was pushed away by the mayor’s spokespeople. Kazbek Bektursunov threatened the journalist with filing a complaint to the STB channel management.
When Mr. Chernovetsky rose to his feet and headed to the door, Mr. Andrushko tried to reach him with a microphone in his hand. When Mr. Chernovetsky left the conference, hardly noticing the journalist, Kazbek Bektursunov, PR advisor for the mayor of Kyiv, demanded explanation and said he would “inform the media holding owner Viktor Pinchuk on the journalist’s actions”.
“I am going to have a talk with Borodiansky (the STB channel director), Mustafin (STB news editor) and Bohutsky (chair of Viktor Pinchuk’s channels) today. I will insist we watch the video of the entire situation. So I am going to see you today”, Mr. Bektursunov promised the journalist.
STB’s correspondent Sergiy Andrushko said he had intended to ask Mr. Chernovetsky a question for his story, which had nothing to do with the election of the Kyiv mayor.
Mr. Chernovetsky’s security also prohibited journalists to shoot and take photos of Mr. Chernovetsky from the left side, without giving any explanation.
Economic, political, indirect pressure: 1
27-05-08 The MB Holding directors complain about the pressure, put on the media holding by the mayor of Melitopol Dmytro Sychov over the independent position of the holding journalists, covering performance of the city government. The MB Holding spent several hours rallying at the building the Melitopol city council, demanding to prolong a leasing agreement on the building housing the printing house of the holding company.
The city council ruled to terminate the leasing contract with the holding company on the office in downtown Melitopol, housing the printing house of the media holding company.
Media Holding Director General Mykhailo Kumok told IMI: “I am convinced it is connected with the position of our newspaper. But there is also another factor, an economic one, as the office is situated in the city center, where the land is extremely expensive”.
“Another direction of putting pressure is the Press company, which has become one of the leading press selling companies in Melitopol in just five years. They have been inventing grounds to take away the land under its kiosks. We have to admit some representatives of the Melitopol prosecutor’s office help the city executive committee to do that”, the MB Holding company says in a press release it has made public.
Melitopol mayor Dmytro Sychov says the situation with the MB Media Holding company has nothing to do with freedom of expression. The circumstances around the printing house are a typical business conflict, he said, to resolve which the holding management have been using the media assets.
“I consider this situation as a business conflict. As to the fact it is a media holding company, it is just abusing the position of the media”, the mayor of Melitopol told IMI.
Mr. Sychov stressed the lease rates were significantly below the normal market rates. The city council offered several times to draw up an agreement with actual market rates, he said.
“At the moment, the city council has ruled to create a commission, which is examining the current situation”, Mr. Sychov said.
Legal actions started against mass media and journalists: 2
7-05-08 MP Andriy Portnov (the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc) demands that Channel 5 refutes information on his engagement in raider attacks, made public in the People’s Control program on April 13, 2008. Mr. Portnov filed a lawsuit against Channel 5 to the Podil district court of Kyiv, Telekritika reports.
The Member of Parliament filed the lawsuit against Andriy Semydidko, Director of the Anti-Raider Union of Businessmen, whose comments had been used by the authors of the program. The third litigant in the case is newspaper Vechirniy Kyiv, as People’s Control referred to the informal raider rating, published by the newspaper.
Oleksiy Hrabezhov, chief of the legal department of Channel 5, told Telekritika: “A preliminary court hearing in the case was scheduled for April 25, 2008. The plaintiff’s representative did not turn up, as a result the preliminary hearing was postponed for late May. It is not the first lawsuit against Channel 5 and I don’t think it’s the last. Just like most of the lawsuits, filed this year, this one has absolutely no grounds”.
Spokespeople for the Kyiv Media Holding Company published before comments of Roman Kostrytsia, Vechirniy Kyiv’s editor-in-chief: “The only legal way to stop such persons (as Andriy Portnov - Telekritika) is to maximally inform the public on their activities”.
Andriy Portnov’s lawyer Volodymyr Makar told Telekritika the court hearing was scheduled for May 23.
23-05-08 A court heard the MP Andriy Portnov (the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc) vs. Channel 5 case.
Andriy Portnov’s lawyer and representatives of the Express Inform and NBM companies attended the court session.
The court adjourned the hearing till June 17, 2008 as not all litigants appeared in the court.
***
14-05-08 The Holosiyivsky district court, Kyiv, accepted a lawsuit of the Mykola Katerynchuk bloc against the TV channel ICTV and Yuri Lutsenko, a candidate for a Kyiv city council deputy, leader of the People’s Self-Defense party, Mykola Katerynchuk’s spokespeople report. The plaintiff demands to announce actions of the TV channel and Yuri Lutsenko as illegal and bind them “not to disseminate wittingly false information”.
The hearing is scheduled for May 19, 3 p.m., at the Holosiyivsky district court of the Ukrainian capital.
On Sunday, May 11, among hopefuls in the Kyiv election campaign, Mr. Lutsenko was quoted as saying the following in the Facts of the Week with Oksana Sokolova program:
Report, author – Volodymyr SOKOLOV: In general, Turchynov managed to reach both the skies and the earth, which Yuri Lutsenko failed to do. He had no time for his own campaign as he was looking for the mastermind behind the “smart mayor”. Instead, he found a technical candidate – Mykola Katerynchuk.
Yuri LUTSENKO, candidate for the Kyiv city council, the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense bloc: “Well, that’s a real euphemism. People for instance write on billboards “Kosmos’ whore” (Ukr. “Kosmos”, space in English, is a nickname of Leonid Chernovetsky - IMI). What do I have to do with it? I am a precise person. I say it’s a technical candidate, playing his own ambitious game. He shouldn’t be doing that, he shouldn’t be disgracing the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense list, which brought him to the parliament. Without agreeing his purely ambitious plans with anybody, he has installed billboards with his face, paid with Chernovetsky’s money for, which is not right at all”.
ICTV told Telekritika they had received neither official protests from Mykola Katerynchuk, nor court summons.
New data on legal actions started against mass media and journalists: 4
8-05-08 The Yulia Tymoshenko bloc demands the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda v Ukraine to refute “slanderous information” of one of the officials of the Kyiv city state administration, who said Ukraine’s Vice PM Oleksandr Turchynov is allegedly connected with buildings under construction on Peizazhna Alley. Komsomolskaya Pravda v Ukraine published May 7 an interview with deputy head of the Kyiv city state administration Vitaliy Zhuravsky, mentioning Oleksandr Turchynov’s connection to the construction at Peizazhna Alley.
Volodymyr Pylypenko, Oleksandr Turchynov’s representative, says the Kyiv administrative court found this information inadequate on April 23 and ruled that publishing it was violation of the election law. Kyiv deputy mayor Irena Kilchytska had accused Mr. Turchynov of being connected to the construction works at Peizazhna Alley before.
9-05-08 The Yulia Tymoshenko bloc filed a lawsuit against Komsomolskaya Pravda v Ukraine. May 14, the Podilsky district court of Kyiv satisfied Mr. Turchynov’s lawsuit against the newspaper and bound it to publish the refutation.
16-05-08 Spokespeople for the Ukrainian Media Holding company said the lawyers of the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda v Ukraine had not received the ruling of the Podilsky district court of Kyiv to publish the refutation of the information on the connection of Oleksandr Turchynov, a hopeful for a Kyiv mayor, to the construction works on Peizazhna Alley. As a result, the newspaper can neither execute the court ruling, nor challenge it in an appellate court.
Under paragraph 2 of Article 167 of the Code of Administrative Legal Proceedings, litigants can receive a copy of a ruling or a resolution at the court. But the Podilsky district court did not provide the newspaper with any documents.
Komsomolskaya Pravda v Ukraine’s editor-in-chief Andriy Khrustaliov said: “Delaying the issuance of the legal documentation is a deliberate step aimed at making it impossible for us to prove our right”.
***
26-05-08 A court heard a case on the lawsuit of artists Sergiy Poyarkov and Oleg Pinchuk against Zhenskiy Zhurnal magazine, said editor-in-chief Olena Kyrychenko.
In the lawsuit the artists filed a year ago, they demand moral damages reparation of 10 thousand hryvnias per each and personal right for intact business reputation, honor and dignity.
The plaintiffs’ attorney Dmytro Kolomoytsev said the lawsuit demands were “symbolic” as he commented on the lawsuit: “A particular amount, moral damages reparation and court expenses. The plaintiffs consider this amount fair enough”. He said the lawsuit had been filed after the magazine published an article damaging their honor, dignity and business reputation. “According to the sense of the article, their rights were violated taking into account the context, the use of the headings, words, style, comparison with other artists. That makes an impression they simply tried to humiliate these two persons”, Mr. Kolomoytsev said.
The argument was caused by the article ‘Art Fashion’ (Zhenskiy Zhurnal, May 2007), which characterized Sergiy Poyarkov and Oleg Pinchuk as “glossy artists”. Ms. Kyrychenko says the plaintiffs were revolted by the phrase “We live however in an information-glossy epoch, and artists can sell their paintings for tons of money with the media covering this fact – that’s the way successful “glossy” artists appear. But note, some of them are successful, others simply “glossy”. Aleksandr Klimenko, Oleg Pinchuk, Sergey Poyarkov etc.”
Olena Kyrychenko says the article presented a general view of a roundtable, held with participation of fine art experts and painters.
“I believe that, firstly, I as journalist and our magazine have a right for our own opinion; secondly, we do not insult the plaintiffs because the word “glossy” is a modern widespread term. I guess Mr. Pinchuk and Mr. Poyarkov were insulted by the fact they had not been named among the first and the best, which they believe themselves to be, and decided they could show in this way that the journalists, who did not consider them first, were wrong”, Ms. Kyrychenko said.
As he commented on the article, published by Zhenskiy Zhurnal, Mr. Poyarkov called it defamation. “There is outward defamatory information about Pinchuk, Hapchynska and Poyarkov, made up by a competitive party. I mean people that sell other artists defame those they don’t sell, but whose paintings sell much better. Journalists should ask the other party for comments in this case”, Mr. Poyarkov said. “I believe every journalist calling himself or herself professional, if publishing negative information about somebody, should meet with both parties. If a person listens to one party and then writes an article, this person cannot be called a professional journalist. And a magazine that publishes biased inadequate information cannot be considered a professional edition. I guess amateurship in this aspect has to be punished”.
After Zhenskiy Zhurnal published the abovementioned article, Mr. Poyarkov says the plaintiffs tried to resolve the conflict without taking it to court. “I personally called Zhenskiy Zhurnal and offered to resolve the conflict, call us and appoint a meeting. I made it clear if they did not contact us within a week to resolve the conflict by peaceful means, we would file a lawsuit in a week. Nobody contacted us”, Mr. Poyarkov said.
At the court hearing, Olena Kyrychenko, Zhenskiy Zhurnal editor-in-chief, was called a co-defendant in the case.
During the hearing, Dmytro Kolomoytsev objected to the defendants’ appeal to consider the abovementioned material, published in the magazine, as an evaluating statement. “Referring to Article 47-1 (of the Law) on Information and evaluation statement criteria is beneath criticism as under this Article, a person shall not be made liable if information does not contain facts, but criticism and evaluation of actions”, he stressed. “The abovementioned extract does not contain any criticism, presenting instead inadequate information without referring to any evidence”.
Alla Bronishevska, the lawyer of the magazine, said the issues, covered in the article, had been discussed at the roundtable by art experts and artists. The material was based on their conclusions, she said. “Director of an art gallery Yevheniy Bereznytsky, advisor for the Viktor Pinchuk Fund Mykyta Poturayev, art expert Oleksandr Solovyov and president of the Modern Art Center Viktor Khamatov took part in the roundtable. The article was published in Zhenskiy Zhurnal based on the information, received after the roundtable debates on contemporary art and paintings of some Ukrainian artists”, Ms. Bronishevska said. The plaintiffs “as a result of their artistic and public activities are public persons”, the magazine lawyer said, so under the ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (as of July 4, 2007), “a right for intact business reputation, honor and dignity of an individual shall be subject to defending when a state or public figure proves the information has been disseminated with evil intents, but not to inform the public on intents and position”.
The hearing was adjourned for June 9. Ms. Kyrychenko says the judge ruled the plaintiffs – Sergiy Poyarkov and Oleg Pinchuk – would have to partake in the hearing personally.
***
14-05-08 The Kharkiv clinical emergency hospital won the case against newspaper Gorodskoy Dozor. Gorodskoy Dozor published false information in the April 13, 2007 issue, Igor Shurma, director of the Healthcare and Social Issues Department of the Kharkiv city executive committee told a news conference. The material concerned the issues of work wear and staff turnover in the hospital. The hospital management filed a lawsuit to court. After a lengthy trial, the Kharkiv clinical hospital won the case. The court ruled the Gorodskoy Dozor’s editor-in-chief would have to refute the information on the hospital, published in the April 13, 2007 issue. The newspaper lawyer, in charge of the case, had resigned when the court bound the newspaper to publish the refutation. The newspaper management filed an appeal.
Lawsuits filed by mass media and journalists: 0
New data on lawsuits, filed by mass media and journalists: 1
17-05-08 Valeriy Tkachuk, former editor of the TV channel Kyiv, fired by Kyiv mayor Leonid Chernovetsky, filed an appeal against the verdict as of April 24, 2008 of the Obolonsky district court of the capital. The Obolonsky court ruled not to reinstate Mr. Tkachuk in the position.
In May 2006, Valeriy Tkachuk filed a lawsuit against the mayor of Kyiv Leonid Chernovetsky, accusing the mayor of having fired him illegally. April 22, 2007, the Obolonsky district court ruled to reinstate Mr. Tkachuk in the position of the editor-in-chief of the Kyiv TV channel. But the ruling was challenged by Leonid Chernovetsky in the appellate court. A year later, the same court issued an opposite verdict, ruling not to satisfy Mr. Tkachuk’s lawsuit though the contract with the previous Kyiv mayor was found effective.
²Ì²
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Last comment
 The Ukraine MPs are going to resume an old practice of criminal liability for libel. May 17, the MP Vasyl Kyselyov, who had been elected as a member of the Party of Regions list, has submitted a respective bill at the parliament (Verkhovna Rada). |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Debate
|
Wednesday, 09 June 2010 |
|
The first week of June and the last week of May a number of incidents have been reported which are evidence of attempts made by new Administration of the President, the Cabinet of Ministers and some representatives of the governing party in the regions to restrict rights and freedoms of the mass media and Ukraine’s citizens. These are alarming attempts of the head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and, being in his second job, co-owner of the most important TV channel to exert influence on procedure of delivering the authorizations to broadcast for two independent and critical towards authorities TV channels, Channel 5 and TVi. As response to this pressure the journalists have started a campaign “Stop to censorship!”, held the Journalist’s Day. One should remark, the action which involved several prominent journalists from national TV channels has not been even mentioned in the news at these TV channels. These are facts involving pressure by government bodies. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Last News
10-09-2010
09-09-2010
07-09-2010
03-09-2010
02-09-2010
31-08-2010
27-08-2010
20-08-2010
19-08-2010
16-08-2010
11-08-2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
