No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a publicist and a professor of sociology .

On DATE Rzeczpospolita , a national DATE newspaper , published an article titled “ Zybertowicz – so far CARDINAL:CARDINAL to the Third GPE ” ( PERSON : na razie CARDINAL:CARDINAL dla III RP ) . The article contained information CARDINAL civil lawsuits against the applicant instituted by TIME , the editor - in - chief of CARDINAL of the biggest DATE newspapers , ORG , and a certain M.S and GPE The article also included a comment by the applicant on the lawsuits in question :

“ In a way it is quite interesting [ to note ] who has lodged [ civil ] claims against me so far : CARDINAL agents and CARDINAL their fierce defender ” ( “ NORP drogą to ciekawe , QUANTITY mnie dotychczas pozwał do sądu : dwóch agentów i QUANTITY ich zaciekły obrońca ” ) ”

On DATE , TIME brought a civil action in ORG ( Sąd ORG ) requesting legal protection of his personal rights . He asked that the applicant be ordered to publish an apology and to pay damages of MONEY ( PLN ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) to a charity .

On DATE ORG transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) quashed this decision .

On DATE ORG gave judgment and partly allowed the plaintiff ’s claim . It ordered the applicant to publish an apology on the first , second or third page of Rzeczpospolita . It further determined the exact size and wording of the apology . The court also ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to a charity and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) in court fees .

During the proceedings the court questioned the applicant and the plaintiff . The applicant argued that the phrase in question had represented his opinion about A.M. ’s public statements . Referring to several published statements and excerpts from articles written by TIME , the applicant claimed that he had had a good factual basis for giving this opinion of TIME ’s views about lustration .

The court also obtained an opinion from an expert on linguistics . The expert was asked in particular to reply to the question of whether the phrase “ CARDINAL agents and CARDINAL their fierce defender ” , in the context of the case , constituted a statement of fact or an opinion . In his opinion of CARDINAL DATE the expert stated that the phrase in question had been a statement of fact and not a hypothesis or supposition . In addition , taking into account the ORG presumed general knowledge it was obvious that TIME had been identified in the article as having defended CARDINAL agents . The plaintiff submitted to the court a second expert report ( dated DATE ) , in which another expert on language analysis confirmed that the applicant ’s statement had been a statement of fact .

ORG noted that the applicant , when formulating the statement in question , referred in particular to a number of published statements made by TIME in which he had criticised the lustration law . The applicant also relied on an earlier ORG judgment confirming that GPE had indeed collaborated under communism with ORG .

The court further held that everyone , including those not following the news carefully , was aware that GPE and GPE had been accused of collaborating with ORG . In particular , readers of Rzeczpospolita should have been aware of that fact as the newspaper had published numerous articles on the issue .

ORG also held that , judging by both the applicant ’s statement and the whole article , it did not appear that A.M. had been an “ agent ” . While the applicant in his statement had not specified who in his opinion had been “ an agent ” and who “ their fierce defender ” , from the nature of the publication and taking into account the ORG general knowledge it was clear that it was the plaintiff who was considered to be “ the fierce defender of CARDINAL agents ” . At the same time , the court accepted that had the applicant used a more general formulation and referred only to A.M. ’s attitude towards the lustration law such words could have fallen within the limits of acceptable criticism and it would not have been necessary to protect TIME ’s personal rights .

Lastly , the court considered that from the published statements and quotes from TIME ’s public statements which the applicant had submitted during the proceedings it did not appear that TIME had ever actually defended those CARDINAL particular persons .

In conclusion , the court held that DATE ’s personal rights had been breached , but only partially . For this reason the court considered that the plaintiff ’s claim had been exaggerated ; therefore , it lowered the sum to be paid to the charity .

Both parties appealed .

On DATE ORG modified the firstinstance judgment and ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to the charity and ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in court fees . The applicant was also ordered to publish an apology in Rzeczpospolita .

The court in principle agreed with the reasoning presented by ORG . It held that while the phrase “ fierce defender of CARDINAL agents ” had breached DATE ’s personal rights , it was not defamatory . The court further agreed with ORG that the applicant had named TIME as having defended CARDINAL particular persons . However , he had failed to prove that his statement had been true . Consequently , the court considered that the phrase used by the applicant had breached the plaintiff ’s personal rights ( in particular his good name ) and had conflicted with the values espoused by him .

The court referred to the ongoing public debate in GPE about the necessity of lustration in order to explain and disclose the role of various special services after the World War II . It noted that in the context of that debate the phrase that someone was “ a fierce defender of ... agents ” suggested that that person had defended them , justified their actions and searched for a way to absolve them from any responsibility in the eyes of the public . Consequently , attributing to someone the role of “ fierce defender of ... agents ” was a breach of that person ’s good name and suggested that that person ’s behaviour had been contrary to the public good .

The court also held that the phrase in question had been a statement of fact . However , it considered that there had been no basis for concluding that DATE had defended any agents , or more generally , defended activities of the communist secret services that had been harmful to the public . On the contrary , he had firmly condemned such activities . He had objected to lustration being understood as a tool to destroy people and being used as an argument in political games .

With reference to the sum to be paid to the charity the court noted that the applicant was a highly educated university professor holding numerous public offices . A person in the applicant ’s situation should have been aware of how his statement would have been understood by an average reader of Rzeczpospolita and whether there was any basis for attributing to someone the role of “ [ fierce ] defender ” of ... agents . The court further held that the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid to charity was symbolic and that ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was a more appropriate sum , given – especially considering that it was not an excessive burden for the applicant .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal . In particular , he referred to LAW .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) refused to entertain the applicant ’s cassation appeal on account of the lack of important legal issues to be considered in the case . The court , relying on LAW , noted that freedom of expression did not have an absolute character . It further referred to its own case - law , according to which the necessity to prove that a statement of fact was true was not an excessive requirement and did not infringe the freedom of political debate .

On DATE TIME ’s representative instituted enforcement proceedings in ORG aimed at compelling the applicant to comply with the obligations imposed by ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to publish the apology ordered by ORG in Rzeczpospolita . After the applicant failed to comply with that order , on DATE ORG allowed TIME to publish the apology in Rzeczpospolita in the applicant ’s name and ordered him to cover the fee for its publication in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant received a significant discount on that fee .