The Press for Readers, Social Protection for Journalists
Last week Ukraine’s Constitutional Court announced a ruling that concerns all literate Ukrainians. In particular, it has upheld the constitutional validity of a clause of the law On State Support of the Media and Social Protection of Journalists, which stipulates that the costs of entering a subscription for, and delivery of, periodicals to subscribers should not exceed 40% of the manufacturing costs of one copy of the periodical in question. The constitutional validity of this clause was contested by 46 lawmakers, who filed a motion with the Constitutional Court. According to them, in establishing the delivery and subscription rates, Verkhovna Rada had exceeded its authority. Yet the Constitutional Court upheld the validity of the clause. Justice Vasyl Nimchenko told a news conference about the reasons behind such a ruling. According to him, thirteen of the fifteen justices of the Constitutional Court agreed that the clause in question deals with price policy, which is an “integral part of the policy of the social protection of Ukraine’s population,” the journalists included.
He also made a point of the fact that delays in deliveries of periodicals (which are directly linked with their delivery rates) are caused by a “vacuum in the information space.” This prompts a question about the citizens’ possibilities to use their constitutional rights such as the right to information, freedom of speech, and of conscience. Nimchenko also made it clear that although the Constitutional Court has no reason to suspect abuses by Ukrposhta, the Ukrainian Postal Service, of its monopoly on the market, the court cannot leave the price policy “at the sole discretion of Ukrposhta.” Moreover, the materials of the case at the court’s disposal do not suggest any possibility of Ukrposhta going bankrupt in connection with the court ruling. Yet revenues will no doubt decline.
Why was the clause of the law passed in 1997 contested only in 2003, when the motion was filed? Because it was in 2003 that the relevant amendments were made to Clause 9 of the law On State Support for the Media, providing a clear definition of the notion “manufacturing costs of one copy of a periodical.” In particular, it has been determined that the manufacturing costs do not include the costs of entering subscriptions and the fact that the publication is in color (which is only logical, since a publication in color weighs as much as a black-and-white publication — Ed.). Nimchenko believes that this prompted the motion from the lawmakers, because “the monopolist on the market was primarily interested in ways to earn more money.”
Meanwhile, Chairman of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine Ihor Lubchenko has stated that the attempt to contest the constitutional validity of this clause is alarming. Why have the 46 people’s deputies (44 of whom, according to Lubchenko, represent Our Ukraine) filed such a motion? He does not rule out that this could be an attempt to not only lobby the interests of Ukrposhta but also drive certain publications into bankruptcy by letting their subscription rates soar. Then, in his view, there would be buyers in the market for the bankrupt periodicals. Lubchenko also pointed out that subscription and delivery rates should correspond to the quality of services rendered. He believes that in many villages daily newspapers are delivered in bulk, two or tree times or even once a week. Considering such quality of service, people are reluctant to subscribe, and hence press runs decline.
Yet there is the reverse side of the coin. Formerly, Ukrposhta stated on numerous occasions that some unscrupulous publishers deliberately understate their manufacturing costs, which are used to determine the subscription and delivery rates. But that is a different story.
