Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 105
February 2008
Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria - 36207/03
Judgment 14.2.2008 [Section V]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Conviction of a newspaper reporter for defamation of a politician by unsubstantiated allegations of fact: no violation
Facts: Following a serious banking crisis in the late 1990s, new legislation was introduced to reform Bulgarian banking law, in particular with regard to non-performing and unsecured loans. The new legislation stipulated that the Bulgarian National Bank was to compile a list, to be published in a special bulletin, of all customers with loans which had been overdue for more than six months. The list was presented to the National Assembly in 1998. The customers on the list were popularly referred to as “credit millionaires”.
In 2001 24 Hours, a leading daily newspaper, published an article written by the applicant which stated that M.D., a well-known politician and a Member of Parliament, was on the National Bank’s official list on account of his ownership of three companies. The article suggested that the inclusion of M.D. – a candidate at the time for the post of Deputy Minister of Finance – on the list was a cause for concern for the Prime Minister. The editor of 24 hours’ was then informed by M.D. that he was not a shareholder of the three companies and published a rectified version of the article later the same day. Two days later 24 Hours also ran an additional article in which M.D. denied any involvement with any debtor company.
M.D. subsequently brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for libel. In her defence, the applicant claimed that she had simply relayed information from Members of Parliament who had tipped her off about doubts concerning M.D.’s candidacy. She had verified that information by contacting the Customs Administration Press Office, who had referred her to the Full list of credit millionaires that had been published by another leading national newspaper. Two of the companies were mentioned in the preface of that publication and, having checked an electronic law database, the applicant had found that M.D. had been a member of another company on the debtor list, which she had not mentioned in her article.
A district court found the applicant guilty of criminal defamation and ordered her to pay an administrative fine of 500 new Bulgarian levs (approximately 256 Euros), non-pecuniary damage and costs. That judgment was upheld on appeal. The courts held that the applicant had only been to prove that Mr M.D. was on the official bad debtors’ list through his connection with one company, but not through the three companies cited in the article. Alleging that M.D. was a “credit millionaire” because of his indirect involvement in one company was quite different to stating that he fully owned three companies on the bad debtors’ list. Those decisions also found, in general, that the applicant had not sufficiently verified her information prior to its publication and that, in her desire to publish news quickly and against best journalistic practice, she had failed to consult trustworthy sources.
Law: Article 10 – Both parties agreed that the applicant’s conviction for defamation had amounted to an interference with her right to freedom of expression and was “prescribed by law”. Examining whether that interference had been “necessary in a democratic society” and corresponded to a “pressing social need”, the Court reiterated the vital role of the press as a “public watchdog” and its duty in a democratic society to provide information on all matters of public interest. The article at issue had reported on a question of considerable public interest: the candidacy of a well known politician for the post of Deputy Minister of Finance. Furthermore, as a politician and candidate for public office, M.D. had inevitably and knowingly laid himself open to public scrutiny, in particular as regards his financial integrity.
However, Article 10 did not guarantee totally unrestricted freedom of expression. The statement in the applicant’s article about M.D. being mentioned on an official debtors’ list on account of his ownership of three specifically named companies was clearly an allegation of fact and, as such, susceptible to proof. Indeed, the more serious the allegation, as in the case in question, the more solid the proof had to be, especially as the allegations had been published in a popular national daily newspaper with a wide circulation. The Court saw no reason to question the findings of the domestic courts that the applicant had not provided sufficient proof that her statement was not defamatory and, in fact, that she had published facts which she had known or ought to have known to be dubious. Moreover, she had phrased her statement in such a way as to leave no doubt that it was her allegation, not that of the Members of Parliament who had tipped her off. The statement had also implied that the information was directly based on the official list, not on any other publication. The applicant had adopted the allegations as her own and was therefore liable for their truthfulness. Moreover, there had been no special grounds to exempt the applicant from her obligation to verify the accuracy of her statements. Clearly the other publication relied on by the applicant, which was not an official report, and informal statements by two Members of Parliament in a National Assembly lobby could not be relied upon unreservedly. Although the impugned article had been amended and a reply by M.D. had been published, the original had by that time been widely read and the damage to his reputation already done.
In conclusion, the reasons given by the Bulgarian courts for convicting the applicant were relevant and sufficient and the manner in which the case was examined had shown full recognition of a conflict between, on the one hand, the right to impart information and, on the other, protection of the reputation or rights of others. Moreover, given the relative leniency of her punishment, with criminal liability having been waived in favour of the minimum administrative fine, the domestic authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously)
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – The applicant’s complaint concerning the district court’s failure to establish certain facts had been rectified on appeal and, in any event, had not made her statement concerning M.D.’s ownership of the impugned companies any the less defamatory. Furthermore, the district court could not be criticised for not summoning as a witness the Member of Parliament who had tipped off the applicant, since she had not identified that person and, under the Court’s settled case-law, it was the national courts’ responsibility to assess whether it was appropriate to call a witness. It was primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law and the decisions in the applicant’s case had not been arbitrary.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy