CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 juillet 2007

.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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   516 17.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SANOCKI v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sanocki v. Poland (application no. 28949/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6   (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 4,550 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Janusz Sanocki, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Nysa (Poland). He is linked to Polish right wing political movements and was the mayor of Nysa at the material time.   In 1999-2000 the local daily newspaper Nowa Trybuna Opolska published some 50 articles criticising the town council and the applicant’s activities as mayor.   In reply to an article accusing the town council of bad financial management, the applicant had an article published in the local weekly Nowiny Nyskie in March 2000 entitled “The lies propounded by the Trybuna ”. Pro Media Sp. z o.o., which was the publication director of the newspaper Nowa Trybuna Opolska , claimed that the article was damaging to its reputation and brought legal proceedings against the applicant.   On 20 December 2001 Opole Regional Court ordered the applicant to publish an apology in Nowiny Nyskie and Nowa Trybuna Opolska and to pay approximately EUR 1,705.32 to charities. The courts found that expressions used by the applicant in his article such as   “the method traditionally used by Bolsheviks: calumnious denunciation” or “the Nowa Trybuna Opolska will soon be sinking to gutter level” and the suggestion that the paper published misleading information were humiliating for the publication director. Appeals by the applicant were dismissed by the Court of Appeal and then by the Supreme Court.   In 2002 the applicant brought proceedings in turn against the editor of Nowa Trybuna Opolska for defamation in articles published in 2001. On 19 June 2002 the regional court ordered the publication director and the editor of the newspaper to publish an apology and to pay the equivalent of EUR 426.33 to a non-profit-making organisation. An appeal lodged by the publication director was dismissed on 16 October 2002.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 August 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the proceedings brought against him by the publication director of the Nowa Trybuna Opolska had been unfair because the court had refused to admit certain evidence he had submitted. Relying on Article 10, he also alleged that the judgment against him had interfered with his freedom of expression.   Decision of the Court   Article 6   The Court noted that there was no evidence in the case that cast doubt on the fairness of the proceedings in question. The Polish courts duly stated the reasons that had led them to refuse to admit the evidence submitted by the applicant: it was not relevant to the subject of the dispute because it would not affect the outcome of the trial. The Court accordingly found that there had been no violation of Article 6.       Article 10   The Court found that the judgment against the applicant had amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression; that the interference had been prescribed by Article 24 § 1 of the Civil Code; and that it had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others.   As to whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court noted that the observations in question had been made through the press during an open political debate between a director and a journalist as part of an open discussion of matters of public concern, namely, the credibility of politicians and the truth of information given in the press. In that connection the Court reiterated that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider with regard to a politician than in relation to a private individual. Politicians inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every deed, and had to display a greater degree of tolerance. However, they had to be able to defend themselves when they considered that a publication casting doubt on their person was untrue and might mislead the public as to their manner of exercising power.   The Court acknowledged that the applicant had used provocative language and had, at the very least, failed to be polite to his opponent, the journalist from Nowa Trybunal Opolska . However, political invective often spilled over into the personal sphere; such were the hazards of politics and free debate on ideas, which were the guarantees of a democratic society.   The Court considered that, while journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation, a politician who replied through the press to criticism levelled at him had to be able to do so in accordance with the same principles.   According to the Court, the impugned expressions were therefore to be seen against the background of a political controversy regarding the journalist’s view of the applicant’s manner of exercising power. Admittedly, they were disobliging, but in the overall context of the case they could not be considered to have gone beyond the acceptable limits on freedom of expression. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10.     Judge Garlicki expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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 Convention, 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.