CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } Published on 15 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8195/22 Dariusz KOS against Poland lodged on 23 December 2021 communicated on 26 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for expressing criticism of a public figure. On 13 August 2019 the applicant, who claims to be a local watchdog, published an article about the management of publicly funded municipal companies, specifically, the losses they had registered and the renumerations they had paid to their chief executive officers (CEOs). In the article, entitled “CEOs make a fortune from losses”, he stated, inter alia : “The CEO [of the company] is so determined to conceal his contract for the management of municipal property that he filed an appeal against the judgment favourable to the residents (...) As we can see, the remuneration of the CEOs of municipal companies does not depend on profits, losses (...) but on completely different factors (...) It is the Supervisory Board that sets the goals for a given year. The remuneration paid depends on the achievement of these goals (...) The CEO of the company refused to provide the residents with these resolutions [of the Supervisory Board]. The court overturned this negative decision, but the CEO is not only a bungler [ partacz ] when it comes to managing municipal property, but also a secret agent [ tajniak ] who continues to hide public information, which is why the company filed an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.” On 2 December 2019 one of the CEOs mentioned in the article by name lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. On 21 December 2020 the Żory District Court convicted the applicant of defamation, an offence under Article 212 of the Criminal Code. The court also ordered the applicant to pay a fine of 800 Polish zlotys (approximately 200 euros), to have the judgment displayed in the city hall for one year and to have it published in a public information bulletin. The court observed that the impugned statements had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism and were insulting. The court did not address the necessity of the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. The applicant appealed, relying predominantly on Article 10 of the Convention, and invoking his right to express an opinion about the conduct of a public official. On 15 July 2021 the Rybnik Regional Court upheld the judgment. The court stressed that calling a public official a bungler and a secret agent constituted a criminally sanctioned defamation, and observed that freedom of expression was not unlimited. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the domestic courts violated his right to freedom of expression in that his conviction and the sanctions that were imposed on him were not necessary in a democratic society. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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 Kurłowicz v. Poland , no. 41029/06, 22 June 2010; Kącki v. Poland , no.   10947/11, 4 July 2017; Brzeziński v. Poland , no.   47542/07, 25 July 2019; and Banaszczyk v. Poland , no. 66299/10, 21   December 2021)?