Journalists: top court's decision undermines press freedom
st detractors Monday in an attempt to persuade a sceptical pack of journalists that the court's latest ruling does not undermine press freedoms.
Last month, the court interpreted Ukraine's Law on Information to prohibit not only the collection, but also the storage, use and distribution of personal information gathered without an individual's consent.
The ruling came in the case of Kostyantyn Ustymenko, a Dnipropetrovsk Railroad School employee secretly placed under psychiatric observation in 1988 who later sued the psychiatric hospital's chief doctor for access to his files. The Constitutional Court ruled unanimously on Oct. 30 that Ustymenko is entitled to obtain the information. But its decision also classified such data as an individual's educational and marital status, religious affiliation, health, assets and even date and place of birth as 'confidential information' that cannot be gathered without his consent.
The ruling has set off a storm of protest from the media. Under the court's interpretation, 'any one of us can be sued for publishing any fact from somebody's biography,' wrote Kievskie Vedomosti reporter Varvara Kucherenko, in the popular Kyiv daily's Nov. 18 issue.
Tymchenko tried to reassure journalists Monday. 'Nobody is prohibiting the gathering of information with an individual's permission,' he said.
The chief justice added that all appointed and elected government officials must disclose some personal information on official forms.
'Journalists have access to such information, it is not secret,' Tymchenko said.
However, he acknowledged that the court has not drawn a clear line between such official information and 'confidential information' a person might not want to see published. Tymchenko advised journalists to consult with lawyers before collecting or publishing information that might be considered personal.
At least one prominent attorney described the court's ruling as a sham. 'This ruling seriously violates human rights,' said Kyiv lawyer Viktor Nikazakov, who has defended Kievskie Vedomosti in libel cases. The intent, he said, was 'to muzzle journalists and publications on the eve of elections.'
Tim O'Connor, resident adviser for ProMedia, a journalism resource center funded by the United States Agency for International Development, agreed that the ruling put reporters in a bind.
'It seems to me that this decision could make it much more difficult for journalists to do their job,' he said. 'The right to collect and disseminate information is guaranteed under European treaties which Ukraine has also signed. '… With all the lawsuits against the media lately, it's very clear that most people consider journalists to be enemies. That's unfortunate, but an unclear court decision like this can only make the situation for journalists more difficult.'
Tymchenko said Monday the Constitutional Court had merely fulfilled its role by interpreting Ukraine's year-old constitution.
'The court was following article 32 of the constitution, which was almost word by word repeated in the interpretation of the law,' he said, adding that the ruling left journalists with plenty of ways to collect legitimate information.
And while the court's decision was unanimous, there were indications Monday that some on the panel interpreted it much more narrowly than Tymchenko.
Stanislav Shevchuk, an adviser to Constitutional Court Judge Petro Martynenko, said the concept of 'confidential information' covers only facts intentionally hidden from public view.
'If a person, for example, withdraws his home phone number from the information service, it would be illegal to try and access it,' Shevchuk said.
Nikazakov, Vedomosti's lawyer, derided the ruling as unprofessional.
'The court itself gathers press conferences and issues press releases to interpret the official interpretation unofficially. It looks like an attempt to defend themselves,' he said.
Nikazakov added that the decision, which specifically exempts information gathered in the name of 'national security,' will benefit only those in power. 'Such interpretation is advantageous for those who can say that what they do is done in the interests of the national security,' he said.
