CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2026

.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 } Published on 30 March 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31316/23 Ryszard PODKULSKI against Poland lodged on 2 August 2023 communicated on 12 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for expressing criticism of public figures. In 2016, in several private conversations with a third party, the applicant accused certain businessmen, a lawyer and a judge of corruption and of having a criminal arrangement. The applicant recorded the conversations. The recordings were later obtained by the third party who made them available to the persons accused by the applicant. On an unspecified day the businessmen and the lawyer in question lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. In October 2022 the Mielec District Court convicted the applicant of defamation, an offence under Article 212 of the Criminal Code. It also ordered him to pay a fine of 350,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately 88,000 euros (EUR)) and compensation of PLN 30,000 (approximately EUR   7,500), to have the judgment published in one newspaper and three online news services, and to pay PLN 35,000 (approximately EUR 8,750) in court fees. The court observed that the impugned statements had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism, had been insulting to the victims and had undermined public trust enjoyed by them. The court emphasised that the applicant had acted deliberately, as he had recorded the conversations. The court found the conviction necessary to protect the reputation of the persons in question, and proportionate in the light of the applicant’s financial means. The applicant appealed, relying on in essence on Article 7 and Article 10 of the Convention and invoking his right to express an opinion about the conduct of a public official. He stressed that he had not made his recordings public. On 15 March 2023 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court essentially upheld the first-instance judgment and ordered the applicant to pay PLN   35,000 (approximately EUR 8,750) of court fees for the appellate proceedings. The judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 3 April 2023. The applicant complains under Article 7 of the Convention that he was convicted by means of an interpretation by the domestic courts extending the scope of the provision beyond the wording of the law, and through the use of analogy, to the applicant’s detriment. The applicant also 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. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis to convict the applicant, as required by Article 7 of the Convention ( S.W. v. the United Kingdom , 22 November 1995, § 35, Series A no. 335-B; Cantoni v. France , 15   November 1996, § 29, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and, mutatis mutandis , Liivik v. Estonia , no. 12157/05, §§ 96-104, 25 June 2009)?   2.     Was the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, prescribed by law, necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention ( Kurłowicz v. Poland , no. 41029/06, 22 June 2010; Wojczuk v.   Poland , no. 52969/13, 9 December 2021; and Gąsior v. Poland , no.   34472/07, 21 February 2012)?