CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 décembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   803 19.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DĄBROWSKI v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dąbrowski v. Poland (application no. 18235/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 350   euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Olgierd Dąbrowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Lubajny (Poland). He is a journalist.   The case concerns three articles written by Mr Dąbrowski, which appeared in September 1998 in the daily newspaper, Dziennik Pojezierza . The articles commented on the criminal proceedings against the Deputy Mayor of Ostóda, Tadeusz Lubaczewski, who was found guilty of the burglary of a private company, TVK Vectra, on 22 September 1998.   The last article, published on 23 September 1998, was headlined “The end of a career of a mayor-burglar?”. The article stated that the mayor had been found guilty of an attempt by local government officials to take over a private company. It went on that, should the sentence be upheld on appeal, Mr Lubaczewski would lose his seat if he were successful in the local elections; “the end of his eight year long, stormy and lucrative career in local government”.   On an unspecified date Mr Lubaczewski lodged with Olsztyn District Court a private bill of indictment, charging the applicant with defamation. In particular, he submitted that the applicant’s articles contained a number of false allegations, including: that he was “a mayor-burglar”, that his career in local government was “stormy” and “very lucrative”, that Vectra lost at least 1.5 billion old zlotys as a result of the burglary, and, that the court found him guilty of an attempt by local government officials to take over a private company.   On 7 November 2000 the applicant was convicted of defamation under Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code, on the ground that he did not show 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 1,000 zlotys to a charity and to reimburse the prosecutor 300 zlotys for costs (in total, approximately EUR 330). He appealed unsuccessfully.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 April 2002 and declared admissible on 25 August 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained about his conviction for defamation, relying on Article   10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 The Court observed that it was undisputed that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an “interference” with his right to freedom of expression, that it was “prescribed by law” (Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code) and that it pursued a legitimate aim, the protection of the reputation or rights of others.   As to whether it was necessary in a democratic society, the Court noted that the applicant, a journalist, had written articles in a local newspaper that dealt with issues of public interest of importance for the local community, namely, criminal proceedings concerning a local politician. The Court considered that the content and the tone of the articles were on the whole fairly balanced. For example, the applicant called Mr Lubaczewski a “mayor burglar”, but only after the trial court had found him guilty of burglary. The applicant did not claim that that judgment was final and observed that the appeal court might give a different ruling.   The Court further agreed that 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.   Regarding the reasons given by the domestic courts, the Court considered that they 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 Court next noted that 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 Court found that the reasons adduced by the courts could not be regarded as relevant and sufficient to justify the interference at issue.   Lastly, the Court noted that, 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. In 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 did not prevent 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.   The Court therefore found that 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. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.