CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 30 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 52280/16 Piotr WOJTAS against Poland lodged on 31 August 2016 communicated on 9 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns freedom of expression. The applicant was a   director of a public hospital in Bychawa. At the same time, a non-public healthcare institution in Bychawa closed and ceased its activity. Shortly after, the applicant gave an interview for Gazeta Wyborcza . The interview started with a quote coming from the applicant: “over a number of years there was an active specialised clinic in Bychawa. Suddenly, its owner disappeared, and with her, all the patients’ documentation and medical history”. Further, the applicant submitted that lack of documentation hampered other doctors’ tasks. He recounted that in the past, he had been running the said clinic until a certain J.M.B. took over. Subsequently, J.M.B. closed the facility and the applicant did not know what happened to the patients. After the interview had been published, J.M.B. lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with defamation under Article 212 (2) of the Criminal Code. The trial courts convicted the applicant as charged, finding that the applicant’s statement was not truthful and tarnished J.M.B.’s reputation and professional integrity. The second instance court upheld a major part of the first instance court’s ruling. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of 20,000 Polish zlotys (“PLN”), ordered to pay PLN 5,000 to a charity and bear the costs of the proceedings in the amount of PLN 6,830. The courts further ordered publication of the judgment in Gazeta Wyborcza . The applicant complains under Article 10 that the domestic courts’ decisions breached his right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights under Article   10 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression “necessary in a democratic society”, in particular, as regards severity of the sanctions imposed on him?