CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 2024

.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 28 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 55654/21 Dariusz CZERSKI against Poland lodged on 5 November 2021 communicated on 11 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant for insulting an object of religious worship. In 2018 the applicant placed a plaque on a statue of Pope John Paul II in Starogard Gdański which read “Paedophilia is a crime”. He also sprayed the statue, painting the eyes red. He published photographs of the statue and of the plaque on his Facebook profile. The statue was later washed clean, and the paint left no permanent damage. On 10 December 2020 the Starogard Gdański District Court convicted the applicant on two counts (i) of “insulting a monument” (“ znieważenie pomnika ”, Article 261 of the Criminal Code) and (ii) of offending religious feelings (“ obraza uczuć religijnych ”) of three individuals, who as it appears had filed a crime notice with the police, by insulting the object of their religious worship (Article 196 of the Criminal Code). The applicant was sentenced to three months’ community service for the offence of insulting the monument. The court refrained from imposing a penalty for the other offence. In its judgment the court took into account the ongoing media discussion about the Pope’s alleged awareness of paedophilia in the Catholic Church. It concluded that spraying the statue with paint was excessive, as there were other methods of exercising the right to freedom of expression, such as hanging plaques. On 7 May 2021 the Gdańsk Regional Court essentially upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention of a violation of his freedom of thought, claiming that he was entitled to criticism of religious figures. He also complains under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He argues that his actions, in the form of a performance, expressed his own opinion and had their origins in a vibrant social debate. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of thought within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention? If so, was this interference necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued in terms of paragraph 2 of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis , Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia , nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, § 154, 7 June 2022)?   2.     Was the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Rabczewska v. Poland , no. 8257/13, §§ 51-53, 15   September 2022)?