This is precisely what parliament deputy Yuriy But had done. In 2008 he was one of the first deputies to destroy the very fragile majority held by the coalition of “Orange” parties. He is currently a member of the ruling coalition, and chairs the parliamentary subcommittee on issues of the appointment of judges.

However, his main claim to fame – or notoriety – could well lead to another rap on the knuckles for Ukraine at the European Court of Human Rights.

On Oct. 5, the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Podil District Court against Channel 5 TV journalist Olha Snitsarchuk, who in a news report used the word vidshchepenets (turncoat, renegade) with reference to But.

Yuriy But

Clearly the word was not intended as a compliment, but the court’s ruling was truly staggering. It ordered the journalist to pay But Hr 20,000 ($ 2,500) to compensate for moral damages – not a small amount in Ukraine. Still, that’s a fifth of the Hr 100,000 claim the deputy had made. However, his plaintive story of trauma and suffering was judged as unworthy of this astronomical figure.

According to his statement, he “was forced to intensively look after my health, endeavouring to get out of a state of shock and return to normal life and work. I began to take medicines stabilizing my nervous system and psyche.” He adds that he began to suffer from insomnia, severe headaches, loss of appetite and depression.

Deputy Yuriy But in court: “I was forced to intensively look after my health, endeavouring to get out of a state of shock and return to normal life and work. I began to take medicines stabilizing my nervous system and psyche.”

In her defense, Snitsarchuk cited her right to a values judgment under Ukraine’s Law on Information and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Regrettably, it seems unlikely that the judges in either of the two Ukrainian courts are familiar with the European Court of Human Rights case law, which is legally binding in Ukraine.

The Court in Strasbourg has on many occasions stressed that public figures cannot expect to be handled with kid gloves by the press. Nor can a journalist be held liable for expressing an opinion. The word “turncoat” may have traumatized the deputy, but not because it was demonstrably false.

This extraordinary court ruling comes a few months after a new law was registered in parliament suggesting criminal responsibility for defamation, and less than three months before the new law on protection of personal information comes into force. The latter was signed into law by the president on June 24, despite the strongest warnings from media, human rights groups and even the Bank Association of Ukraine about grave consequences to freedom of speech and information.

This precedent is also a concern due to the large number of other political migrations similar to But’s over the last seven months. Should we expect a spate of such civil suits by other equally wounded and depressed deputies?

On Oct. 6, the Channel 5 team appealed to the High Court of Justice calling for the judge from the Kyiv Court of Appeals to be dismissed. They alleged corrupt dealings and suggested that the head of the panel of judges in this case was under But’s control, given the latter’s position as head of the subcommittee dealing with judges’ appointments. The appeal states that the judge in question was appointed for life on Jan. 15, 2009, at the instigation of But.

It is difficult not to agree with the authors of the appeal that “we have a precedent whereby a journalist and citizen is being deprived of a right to freely hold to her own opinion and circulate information. One of the main factors in the work of a journalist is close scrutiny over the utterances and actions of politicians and public figures. Who, if not journalists should subject these actions to criticism?”

The court ruling came on the day that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe heard and adopted its Report on the Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Ukraine. It expresses concern over allegations of threats to media freedom, independence of the judiciary and democratic institutions in general.

The timing makes an adequate response to well-founded bemusement and concern over this latest encroachment on freedom of speech particularly urgent, albeit unlikely.

Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group.