CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 juillet 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   578 16.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT WOJTAS-KALETA v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland (application no. 20436/02). The case concerned the reprimand of a journalist by her employer, a public television company (TVA), for having expressed a somewhat critical opinion on the classical music policies adopted by that television company.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the sanction imposed on the applicant by her employer, and upheld by the domestic courts, for her having criticised the measures pursued by her employer which had resulted in a reduced airing of classical music on the television.   The applicant had not submitted a claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction). ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Helena Wojtas-Kaleta, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Wrocław. She was a journalist employed by a Polish public television company (TVP).   At the beginning of April 1999 the national newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza published an article reporting that two classical music programmes had been taken off the air. The article quoted an opinion expressed by the applicant in her capacity of the President of the Polish Public Television Journalists’ Union in which she stated that although the TVP director had suggested this step would create new opportunities for classical music to be aired, she herself saw no steps taken in that direction.   In addition, Ms Wojtas-Kaleta signed an open letter in protest against the above measure. The letter was addressed to the Board of TVP and stated among other things that while classical music was the heritage of the nation, its continuous dissemination was seriously jeopardised by diminishing its time on the air and polluting air time instead with violence and pseudo-musical kitsch.   Later in the month of April 1999, the applicant was reprimanded in writing by her employer for failing to observe the company’s regulations which required her to protect her employer’s good name. Following an unsuccessful objection to the reprimand, the applicant brought a claim against TVP before the district court requesting that the reprimand be withdrawn. The court dismissed her claim in a judgment of January 2001 in which it found that Ms Wojtas-Kaleta was guilty of having behaved in an unlawful manner and that this was a necessary and sufficient prerequisite for the disciplinary measure imposed on her. On appeal, in April 2001, the higher regional court upheld the contested judgment concluding that the applicant had acted to the detriment of her employer by breaching her obligation of loyalty and, consequently, the employer had been entitled to impose the reprimand on her.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 October 2001 and was examined for admissibility and merits at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges , and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10, the applicant complained that the courts had restricted unduly her freedom of expression by having referred merely to her obligations as an employee while disregarding her professional obligations as a journalist.   Decision of the Court   The Court first observed that the case raised a problem of how the limits of loyalty of journalists working for public television companies should be delineated and, in consequence, what restrictions could be imposed on journalists in public debate.   The Court then considered that where a State had decided to create a public broadcasting system, the domestic law and practice had to guarantee that the system provided a pluralistic audiovisual service. Under the applicable legislation in this case the public television company had been entrusted with a special mission including, among other things, assisting the development of culture with emphasis on the national intellectual and artistic achievements.   The Court further noted that the applicant had to enjoy freedom of expression in all her capacities: as an employee of a public television, as a journalist or as a trade-union leader. Further it considered that, given the responsibility of journalists to contribute to and encourage public debate, the obligation of discretion and constraint did not apply with equal force to them as it was in the nature of their functions to impart information and ideas.   In her comments and open letter the applicant had referred to widely shared concerns about the declining quality of music programmes, something which had been a matter of public interest. In addition, the applicant’s statements had relied on a sufficient factual basis and had at the same time amounted to value judgments which were not susceptible of proof. Neither had her comments been a gratuitous attack on another person aiming to offend them, as their tone had been measured and there had been no personal accusations. Finally, the applicant’s good faith had never been challenged neither by her employer nor by the domestic authorities involved in the proceedings. Accordingly, having balanced the different interests involved in the present case, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.