CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 décembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 92 December 2006 Dąbrowski v. Poland - 18235/02 Judgment 19.12.2006 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Journalist convicted of defamation for having reported and commented on a mayor's criminal conviction: violation   Facts : The applicant is a journalist. The case concerned three articles   written by him and which appeared in a daily newspaper in 1998. The articles   commented on the criminal proceedings against the Deputy Mayor of Ostóda, Mr   Lubaczewski, who was found guilty of the burglary of a private company. The last article   – headlined “The end of a career of a mayor-burglar?” – stated, in particular, that the mayor had been found guilty of an attempt by local government officials to take over a private company. Mr   Lubaczewski lodged a private bill of indictment, charging the applicant with defamation. He submitted that the applicant's articles   contained a number of false allegations. The applicant was convicted of defamation on the ground that he had not shown in a convincing manner that the allegations made by him were true. The criminal proceedings against him were then conditionally discontinued and he was ordered to pay a minor amount to a charity and to reimburse the prosecutor's costs. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. Law : The articles   had dealt with issues of public interest of importance for the local community, namely, criminal proceedings against a local politician. The content and the tone of the articles   were fairly balanced on the whole. For example, the applicant called Mr   Lubaczewski a “mayor- burglar” only after the trial court had found him guilty of burglary. The applicant did not claim that that judgment was final and noted that the appeal court might give a different ruling. Some of the applicant's statements were value judgments on a matter of public interest which could not be said to have been devoid of any factual basis. Moreover, the applicant's statements were not a gratuitous personal attack on a politician. Neither could it be said that the purpose of the statements in question was to offend or to humiliate the criticised person. The reasons given by the domestic courts failed to have regard to the fact that the applicant, as a journalist, had a duty to impart information and ideas on political questions and on other matters of public interest and in so doing had possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration. The domestic courts did not take into account the fact that Mr   Lubaczewski, being a politician, should have shown a greater degree of tolerance in the face of criticism. In sum, the reasons adduced by them could not be regarded as relevant and sufficient to justify the interference at issue. While the penalty imposed on the applicant was relatively light, and, although the proceedings against him were conditionally discontinued, the domestic courts found that he had committed the criminal offence of defamation. As a consequence, the applicant had a criminal record. Moreover, it remained open to the courts to resume the proceedings at any time during the period of his probation. Furthermore, while the penalty had not prevented the applicant from expressing himself, his conviction nonetheless amounted to a kind of censorship which was likely to discourage him from making criticisms of that kind again in the future. Such a conviction was likely to deter journalists from contributing to public discussion of issues affecting the life of the community and hamper the press in the performance of its task of purveyor of information and public watchdog. In sum, the applicant's conviction was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, given the need in a democratic society to ensure and maintain the freedom of the press. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 350   for pecuniary and EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes