CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42442/08 Tadeusz MURA against Poland lodged on 18 August 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr   Tadeusz Mura, is a Polish national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Rybnik. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 March 2005 the applicant’s wife, a businesswoman, was arrested and detained on remand on charges of fraud and association with an organised crime group. The applicant and their children protested against the detention by organising demonstrations outside the prosecutor’s office and the prison, contacting the press and writing letters to the authorities. Following the arrest of the applicant’s wife their family and financial situation deteriorated; their adolescent child underwent psychiatric treatment after a suicide attempt. The applicant’s wife was released on bail on 13 June 2005. It is not clear whether she was indicted or convicted by a court. During the applicant’s wife’s detention the applicant wrote to her on a daily basis. In many cases he would bring the letters addressed to his wife at the Lubliniec Prison directly to the registry of the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor in order to speed up their delivery. On an unspecified date the Katowice Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant under Article 226 of the Criminal Code accusing him of slander of a public official, the Appellate Prosecutor Mr A.P. On 15 June 2007 the Katowice District Court convicted the applicant of slander ( zniewaga ) in breach of Article 216 and not 226 of the Criminal Code considering that the offence had not been committed during or in connection with the carrying out of professional duties by a public official. The applicant was sentenced to 500 Polish zlotys (PLN) fine and to pay PLN   900 for the costs of the proceedings. The court considered that in his letters to his wife the applicant had used vulgar and insulting expressions about the prosecutor A.P. In particular the applicant stated that the prosecutor had cooperated with the mafia, had an IQ below ten, had ridiculed the Polish judicial system and had a mental disorder. He also called him a Satan, bastard, bandit and stupid. The court noted that some of the insults were so vulgar that they should not be quoted in the reasoning of the judgment. The court considered that the applicant had known that all the letters addressed to his wife had been subject to censorship, and thus had been read by the prosecutor A.P. Moreover, in some letters the applicant addressed his insults directly to Mr A.P. stating for example “P., you bandit”. The applicant and the prosecutor each lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 19 February 2008 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed both appeals. The court upheld the findings and conclusions of the first ‑ instance court. The appellate court examined the case from the standpoint of Article   10 of the Convention and considered that the applicant had overstepped the limits of permissible criticism. The applicant failed to pay the fine due to his difficult financial situation. He asked the court to postpone its payment. In 2010 the fine was commuted to imprisonment. It is not clear whether the applicant served the sentence of imprisonment and what was its length. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention that his conviction for slander amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression. 2.     He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him in that the questions put by his lawyer had been disallowed by the trial court.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?