Information Note on the Court’s case-law 198
July 2016
Ziembiński v. Poland (no. 2) - 1799/07
Judgment 5.7.2016 [Section IV]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Criminal conviction and imposition of a fine on journalist for article mocking local government officials: violation
Facts – The applicant was the proprietor and editor-in-chief of a local newspaper which published an article mocking a district mayor and two of his officials for their endorsement of a project to develop quail farming in the region as a solution to the problem of rural unemployment. The article called the district mayor and one of the officials “dull bosses” and described the other official as being a “numbskull”, “dim-witted” and a “poser”.
The mayor and the two officials brought a private prosecution against the applicant for defamation. Having reclassified the offence as one of proffering insults, the domestic courts sentenced him to a fine, finding that he had abused his freedom of speech and infringed the officials’ dignity.
Law – Article 10: The applicant’s conviction and sentence had amounted to “interference” with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. It had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others.
The applicant had written a satirical article criticising the quail farming project endorsed by the local officials as a remedy to the problem of local unemployment. There was no doubt that this issue, which related to the exercise of the local officials’ functions, had been a matter of legitimate public interest and so concerned a sphere in which restrictions on freedom of expression were to be strictly construed.
The applicant was convicted of proffering insults against local government officials, including a mayor, who, as an elected local politician, could be subjected to wider criticism than private individuals. The other two officials were civil servants. While civil servants acting in an official capacity were, like politicians, subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals, it could not be said that they knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent politicians do.
The assessment of the necessity of the interference in the present case could not be detached from the context and the apparent goal of the applicant’s criticism. The satirical nature of the text and the irony underlying it had to be taken into account when analysing the article. The use of sarcasm and irony was perfectly compatible with the exercise of a journalist’s freedom of expression. However, the domestic courts had not taken sufficient account of these features.
There was no doubt that the remarks in question, taken in the particular context of the article, remained within the limits of admissible exaggeration. The domestic courts had failed to consider them in the context of the article as a whole. Satire was a form of artistic expression and social commentary which, by its inherent features of exaggeration and distortion of reality, naturally aimed to provoke and agitate. Accordingly, any interference with the right to use this means of expression had to be examined with particular care.
Lastly, the applicant had been sentenced to a fine of EUR 2,630 and ordered to reimburse costs totalling EUR 755.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the domestic courts had not given “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the applicant’s conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the interference with his right to freedom of expression had been disproportionate to the aim pursued, and had not been “necessary in a democratic society”.
Conclusion: violation (five votes to two).
Article 41: EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 3,385 in respect of pecuniary damage.
© 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