Moscow welcomes reform of UN’s anti-terrorism activities — LavrovRussian Politics & Diplomacy September 22, 3:53
NATO seeking to revive cold war-era climate — LavrovRussian Politics & Diplomacy September 22, 3:51
Situation in Syria gives grounds for cautious optimism — LavrovWorld September 22, 1:24
NATO secretary general comments on Russian military drillsWorld September 21, 21:34
NATO secretary general hails idea of deploying UN force in UkraineWorld September 21, 21:29
Russia ready to discuss alternative resolutions on UN mission to DonbassRussian Politics & Diplomacy September 21, 20:18
UN approves probe into Islamic State crimes in IraqWorld September 21, 20:10
Russia’s Alrosa mined all-time largest pink diamond in its historyBusiness & Economy September 21, 20:07
Russia submits Zvyagintsev’s film Loveless for OscarsSociety & Culture September 21, 19:16
KIEV, January 24 (Itar-Tass) —— The Ukrainian Constitutional Court has ruled that the collection, storing, use and distribution of confidential information about individuals without their consent is an interference in personal and family life, which is permitted exclusively in the cases defined by the law and in the interests of national security, economic well being and human rights.
Constitutional Court Chairman Anatoly Golovin announced the decision on Tuesday.
The Court has thus given an interpretation of certain articles of the Ukrainian constitution by request of the Zhashkovsky district council in the Cherkassy region, which asked to explain the essence of information about personal and family life and to say whether such information was confidential.
From now on, Ukrainian journalists, who often write about the personal life of politicians and businessmen without their consent, would be fined from $1,000 to over $2,000 or sentenced up to two years of correctional labor or an arrest of up to six months of an imprisonment of up to three years. If the offense repeats, such journalists may be imprisoned for up to five years.
Journalists are given an opportunity to prove their innocence. Article 29 of the Law on Information says that the journalist may be pronounced not guilty if the disclosed information has public significance, which outweighs the potential damage.