Published on 21 February 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 56778/18
Cezary GMYZ
against Poland
lodged on 26 November 2018
communicated on 1 February 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a judgment ordering the applicant, who was a reporter for the daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita, to publish an apology for writing an article allegedly defaming a popular Polish journalist S.D.
On 30 November 2010 Rzeczpospolita published an article written by the applicant. In the article the applicant described a court judgment declaring that S.D. had lied in her lustration statement concerning her alleged collaboration with Poland’s communist secret services. The article entitled “D. was a secret collaborator” (D. była TW) mentioned that the judgment was not final.
On 18 October 2012 the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) declared that S.D.’s lustration statement was truthful. The judgment became final on 25 March 2013.
On 29 November 2013 S.D. sued the applicant, P.L. (editor-in-chief of Rzeczpospolita) and G.M sp. z o.o. (publishing company) demanding that each of them publish an apology for breaching her personal rights. She also claimed damages for the sum of 500,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 120,000 euros (EUR)).
On 30 January 2015 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed S.D.’s claims. On 10 November 2016 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) changed the judgment and obliged each defendant to publish an apology. It relied on domestic legislation which prohibited publishing the names of defendants in ongoing criminal proceedings without the prior permission of a prosecutor or a court. The court stated that a violation of this prohibition, which also applied to lustration cases, could not be justified by a journalist’s subjective sense of acting in the public interest or by the fact that S.D. was a public figure.
On 22 February 2018 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see Braun v. Poland, no. 30162/10, § 42-51, 4 November 2014)?