CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF514A5EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:396pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   085 02.02.2010       Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Kubaszewski v. Poland (application no. 571/04)   LOCAL POLITICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO PUBLISH APOLOGY FOR MAKING ALLEGATIONS ABOUT MUNICIPALITY’S PUBLIC SPENDING   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights          Principal facts   The applicant, Czesław Kubaszewski, is a Polish national, born in 1944, who lives in Kleczew. In March 2000, during a session of the Kleczew Municipal Council, of which he was a member at the time, he participated in a debate on the question of whether the Municipal Board had made appropriate use of its budget. He expressed doubts as to whether certain investments had been made as planned and stated that it was not clear which sums had been spent for which purpose. He asked whether this manner of public spending did not amount to money laundering. A local newspaper published an article in which the applicant’s accusations against the Municipal Board were quoted.   Two months later, seven members of the Municipal Board lodged a civil claim seeking an order requiring the applicant to publish an apology. The claims were fully granted by the regional court. Its judgment was subsequently amended by the second-instance court, which found that most of the applicant’s statements had fallen within the limits of permissible criticism and only his allusion to money laundering had gone beyond those limits, infringing the Board members’ personal rights. The court ordered the applicant to publish an apology in the local newspaper which had published his statements and to apologise at the Municipal Council’s next session. In October 2003, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision. In July 2007 the District Prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for making false accusations about another person before a prosecuting body. The criminal proceedings are still pending.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained that the municipal authorities’ actions had mainly aimed to keep him from interfering with financial issues of the municipality, in breach of his rights under Article 10.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 December 2003.   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 also Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court limited its examination to the applicant’s statement about the alleged money laundering, since the second-instance court at national level had found all other statements to fall within the scope of freedom of expression. The Court considered that the Municipal Council’s session had been the appropriate time and place to discuss any possible financial irregularities concerning the municipal budget. The applicant’s allegations, part of a political debate, had not been directed against a specific person, but against the entire Municipal Board. It was moreover precisely the task of an elected representative to ask critical questions when it came to public spending.   Bearing in mind the crucial importance of free political debate in a democratic society, the Court further observed that the domestic courts had at no level of jurisdiction taken into account that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for politicians than for private individuals and that the members of the Municipal Board thus should have shown a greater degree of tolerance in the face of the applicant’s allegations. The Court therefore unanimously held that no fair balance had been struck between the protection of the Board members’ reputation and the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   *** The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 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.