CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 janvier 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s36603326 { width:18.34pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     32   21.1.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JANOWSKI v. POLAND       In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on Thursday, 21 January 1999 in the case of Janowski v. Poland (application no.   25716/94), the European Court of Human Rights held by 12 votes to 5 that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.       1.   Principal facts     The applicant, Mr Józef Janowski, a Polish national, was born in 1937 and lives in Zduńska Wola, Poland. He is a journalist.     On 2 September 1992 he noticed two municipal guards ordering street vendors to leave a square in Zduńska Wola. The vendors were told to move their stands to a nearby marketplace and were fined. The applicant intervened and remonstrated with the guards.     On 29 April 1993 the Zduńska Wola District Court convicted the applicant of insulting the municipal guards. He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment suspended for two years and fined 1,500,000 old zlotys. The applicant was also ordered to pay 400,000 old zlotys to charitable institutions and court costs of 346,000 old zlotys. He appealed against this judgment. On 29 September 1993 the Sieradz Regional Court quashed the part of the judgment imposing a prison sentence and the order to pay 400,000 old zlotys to charitable institutions. The Regional Court upheld the fine of 1,500,000 old zlotys but reduced the court costs to 150,000 old zlotys. It considered that although the judgment of the trial court did not mention the abusive words used by the applicant, there was nevertheless sufficient evidence in the case file to conclude that the applicant had in fact insulted the guards by calling them “oafs” and “dumb” ( ćwoki and głupki ).     2.   Proceedings and composition of the Court     The application to the European Commission of Human Rights, which was lodged on 25 January 1994, was declared partly admissible on 27 November 1996.     Having attempted unsuccessfully to secure a friendly settlement, the Commission adopted a report on 3 December 1997 in which it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 10 (eight votes to seven).     It referred the case to the old Court on 16 March 1998. The Polish Government and the applicant also brought the case before the Court.     Under the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case was transmitted to the Grand Chamber of the new European Court of Human Rights on the entry into force of the Protocol, on 1 November 1998. Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber composed of seventeen judges, namely:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Vice-President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Vice-President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Benedetto Conforti (Italian), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), András Baka (Hungarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian),   and also of Michele de Salvia , Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment     Complaints     The applicant raised before the Court several complaints under Articles 3, 6, 7 § 1 and 10 of the Convention. The Court observed that only the applicant’s complaint under Article   10 that his conviction violated his right to freedom of expression, had been declared admissible by the Commission and considered that it was therefore required to examine only the applicant’s complaint under Article 10     [ See paragraphs 19-20 of the judgment. ]     Decision of the Court     It was common ground that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression and was “prescribed by law”. The Court saw no reason to conclude otherwise. Furthermore, it concluded that the conviction of the applicant had been intended to pursue the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder.     [ See paragraphs 22-26 of the judgment .]   The Court noted that the applicant had been convicted of insulting the municipal guards by calling them “oafs” and “dumb” during an incident which took place in a square arising out of the actions of the guards who insisted that street vendors trading in the square move to another venue. The applicant’s remarks did not therefore form part of an open discussion of matters of public concern and did not involve the issue of freedom of the press. The applicant clearly acted as a private individual and not a journalist on this occasion. The Court was not persuaded by the applicant’s claim that his conviction was widely considered as an attempt by the authorities to restore censorship and constituted discouragement of the expression of criticism in future.   Limits of acceptable criticism might in some circumstances be wider with regard to civil servants exercising their powers than in relation to private individuals. However, it could not be said that civil servants knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent to which politicians did and should therefore be treated on an equal footing with the latter when it came to the criticism of their actions. Civil servants had to enjoy public confidence if they were to be successful in performing their tasks and it might therefore be necessary to protect them from offensive verbal attacks when on duty.   The Court accepted that the applicant had resorted to abusive language out of genuine concern for the well-being of fellow citizens in the course of a heated discussion. This language was directed at law enforcement officers who had been trained how to respond to it. However, he insulted the guards in a public place, in front of a group of bystanders, while they were carrying out their duties. The actions of the guards did not warrant resort to offensive and abusive verbal attacks.     The Court was satisfied that the reasons adduced by the national authorities were “relevant and sufficient” for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 10 and that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It also noted that the applicant’s sentence was substantially reduced on appeal. In sum, it could not be said that the national authorities overstepped the margin of appreciation available to them in assessing the necessity of the contested measure.     [ See paragraphs 31-35 of the judgment and the operative part of the judgment .]     Judges Wildhaber, Rozakis, Bratza, Bonello and Casadevall expressed dissenting opinions and these are annexed to the judgment.     The judgments of the Court are accessible on its Internet site (www.dhcour.coe.fr) on the day of delivery.     Subject to his duty of discretion, the Registrar is responsible under the Rules of Court for replying to requests for information concerning the work of the Court, and in particular to enquiries from the press.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contact: Roderick Liddell Telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92; fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91