The General Court of the European Union (CVRIA) annulled the entry of a Belarusian journalist in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures against Belarus.
According to CVRIA, the European Council infringed the rights of the defence of the journalist and made errors of assessment in the reasons relied on against him.
CVRIA Decision
Aliaksei Mikhalchanka is a Belarusian journalist on the public television channel Obshchenatsional’noe Televidenie (ONT). Following the disappearance of key figures, fraudulent elections and serious violations of human rights in Belarus, the Council decided to take restrictive measures (travel bans within the EU and asset freezes) in respect of various Belarusian nationals. In 2011, the Council adopted such measures against Mr Mikhalchanka on the following ground: ‘Journalist of the state TV channel ONT with senior and influential position’. In 2012, the Council maintained those measures while amending the ground as follows: ‘Journalist of the state TV channel ONT with an influential position. He is the anchorman of the TV programme "That is how it is". This programme is an instrument of state propaganda on TV, which supports and justifies the repression of the democratic opposition and of civil society. The opposition and civil society are systematically highlighted in a negative and derogatory way using falsified information. [Mr Mikhalchanka] was particularly active in this regard after the crackdown on peaceful demonstrations on 19 December 2010 and on subsequent protests’. Mr Mikhalchanka is seeking the annulment of those entries.
In its judgment today, the General Court upholds the application for annulment submitted byMr Mikhalchanka.
First, the General Court finds that the rights of the defence of Mr Mikhalchanka were infringed at the time when the restrictive measures were maintained in 2012. Since the grounds given in 2012 were worded differently from those given in 2011, the Council was required to inform Mr Mikhalchanka of new evidence that it intended to use against him. As the measures of 2012 were not notified to Mr Mikhalchanka before they were adopted, he was not in a position to put his case properly prior to the adoption of the relevant acts.
Secondly, the Court considers that the Council made errors of assessment in the grounds given in 2011. In contrast to what is stated in the measures of 2011, it is not apparent from the analysis of the documents in the case that Mr Mikhalchanka is a journalist with a senior position. Mr Mikhalchanka is not a senior journalist within the structure of ONT, but is rather a specialised journalist, namely a political commentator in the news broadcast unit of ONT and anchorman of the TV programme ‘Kak Est’. The Council has not disclosed any evidence capable of demonstrating the influence, actual impact or responsibility that Mr Mikhalchanka or, as the case may be, the television program he presented, could have had in the violations of international electoral standards and the repression of civil society and the democratic opposition. The documents provided by the Council do not state that the ‘Kak Est’ programme had a large audience or that Mr Mikhalchanka was such an influential journalist in the Belarusian media that he bore some responsibility for the violations of international electoral standards and the repression of civil society and the democratic opposition. No evidence has been submitted by the Council showing the impact of that programme in the Belarusian media.