Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
Communicated on 13 September 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 70345/14
Wojciech Kazimierz CIEŚLA
against Poland
lodged on 24 October 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Wojciech Kazimierz Cieśla, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Warsaw. He is represented before the Court by Mr K.M. Orlik, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Publications
The applicant is a journalist for Dziennik, a Polish daily newspaper.
On 29 May 2008 Dziennik published an article written by the applicant and another journalist, T.B., under the headline “An Oil Million for M.’s People” (Naftowy million dla ludzi M.). The article concerned P.W., a member of the Board of Directors (zarząd) of a limited liability company “Naftor Sp. z o.o.” (Naftor). The journalists recounted that Naftor was to make a severance payment (odprawa) of PLN 500,000 (approximately EUR 125,000) to P.W. and to T.M., a nephew of A.M. and a deputy of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość), in addition to compensation already received. The journalists also stated that those employees who had come to Naftor with P.W. would be dismissed with him and would also receive substantial severance payments. They explained that, according to one of Naftor’s employees, this was possible due to the inclusion of non-competition clauses in the contracts of P.W. and employees supported by him. Moreover, the authors described P.W.’s managerial style as “Byzantine” and mentioned that P.W. “was famous” for his exotic travels together with T.M., which had been paid for by Naftor. The article included a statement that, in March 2008, P.W. had bought a gun with public money (“W marcu za państwowe pieniądze kupił pistolet.”).
On 30 May 2008 the applicant and T.B. published in Dziennik another article regarding P.W. and Naftor headlined “The Minister Will Halt the Severance Payments for M.’s People” (Minister wstrzyma odprawy dla ludzi M.). In the article they noted the reactions of various politicians to the previous article. In particular, they included the statement of the Minister of the State Treasury, who had requested Naftor’s Supervisory Board to stop the planned severance payments. They also stated that P.W. had refuted the information published by Dziennik and had issued a statement in which he had claimed that both authors were influenced by agents of the Military Information Services. Finally, they mentioned the cooperation between Naftor and an “unknown” law firm of a certain K.M., from P.W.’s hometown, Pułtusk, that provided legal services for Naftor and was also encompassed by a non-competition clause.
On 2 June 2008 Dziennik published a third article written by the applicant and T.B. concerning Naftor entitled “The Scandal in Naftor. W. and M. Have also Taken Bonus Payments” (Afera w Naftorze. W. i M. wzięli też premie). In the article they indicated that, in addition to the severance payments, P.W. and T.M. had “granted themselves” (sami przyznali sobie) financial awards “hours before they left Naftor”. The journalists specified that on 8 May 2008, that is a day before its dissolution, Naftor’s Supervisory Board had granted P.W. and T.M. financial awards for 2007. Moreover the authors stated that, shortly before the elections to the lower house of the Polish Parliament, Sejm, P.W. and T.B. had amended their own contracts and the contracts of their trusted employees in order to obtain almost PLN 1 million (approximately EUR 250,000) in severance payments. However, their payout had been stopped after the first article was published in Dziennik. Finally they submitted that, according to unofficial sources, the Ministry of the State Treasury had intended to determine from what other companies controlled by the State Treasury P.W. and T.M. had received money.
2. Civil proceedings against the editor
On 24 June 2008 P.W. and T.M. lodged a civil claim for the protection of their personal rights against the editor of Dziennik: Axel Springer Polska Sp. z o.o. They sought an order requiring the defendant to publish an apology for allegedly violating their personal rights in the three aforementioned articles. They also required an apology to be published on the www.dziennik.pl website and broadcast twice on the same day by the television channel Polsat. They further sought damages from the defendant of PLN 20,000 (approximately EUR 5,000) to be paid to each of them.
On 9 April 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court found for the plaintiffs. The court considered that the vast majority of the statements contained in the articles in question had been based on untrue, unverified or imprecise information. In particular, the court found the headlines of the articles misleading. Thus, it ordered the defendant to publish the apology and to pay the requested compensation of PLN 20,000 to each of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed.
On 12 October 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal partly amended the contested judgment. The court found that the key article statements constituted statements of facts and were true except for the information concerning the gun purchase by P.W. Nevertheless, it critically assessed the evaluation of those facts by the journalists. In particular, the court deemed unacceptable that the manner in which the authors presented the article unambiguously suggested that the plaintiffs had committed a crime. Therefore, it changed the contents of the apology sought.
3. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 30 April 2009 P.W. lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant and T.B. with the Warsaw District Court. He complained that the authors had published untrue information, which had lowered the public’s opinion of him and had damaged the good reputation necessary to undertake his function as a member of the board of directors. He relied on Article 212 of the Criminal Code, penalising the offence of defamation (zniesławienie).
On 14 February 2013 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant and T.B. of defamation through the media under Section 212 of the Criminal Code with regard to some statements contained in the articles published on 29 May 2008 and 2 June 2008. They were acquitted with respect to the statements published in the article of 30 May 2008. The court sentenced each of the co-authors to a fine of PLN 5,000 (approximately EUR 1,250) and ordered them to pay PLN 650 (approximately EUR 162.50) in costs. It also ordered the contents of its judgment to be made public.
The court held that the journalists had published untrue information relating to P.W. which had damaged his reputation. The court considered the statements published on 29 May 2008, that P.W. had bought a gun with public money and that Naftor was supposed to pay him PLN 500,000 in severance payments, to be untrue. Likewise, the statement published on 2 June 2008 that P.W. and T.B. had amended contracts in order to obtain almost PLN 1 million (approximately EUR 250,000) in severance payments shortly before the elections to Sejm and had granted themselves financial awards hours before they left Naftor was untrue. In that respect, the court found it untrue that the awards had been granted by Naftor’s Supervisory Board and not the Board of Directors and no award sums had so far been paid out by Naftor.
The applicant and T.B. appealed. They submitted in particular that the first instance court had exceeded the limits of the private bill of indictment by specifying the offences; had incorrectly evaluated the evidence, while failing to assess the fact that the award payments had been halted by Naftor and incorrectly establishing the date of the Sejm elections; and had also violated Article 10 of the Convention.
On 10 September 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court partly amended the contested judgment. The regional court agreed with the appeal plea concerning the incorrectly established date of the Sejm elections by the first instance court and, thus, removed the passage concerning this statement from the description of the criminal offence in question. It also reduced the fines ordered to PLN 3,750 (approximately EUR 937.50). However, the regional court considered that the district court had been entitled to specify the criminal offences as the private bill of indictment had not been drafted by a legal professional. Moreover, the regional court criticised the applicant and T.B. for “embellishing” the story (koloryzowanie) and assumed, in passing, that it had been “most likely [done] in pursuit of sensation or for the purposes of the political power game” (“zapewne w pogoni za sensacją lub na użytek prowadzonej walki politycznej”). Finally, the court briefly referred to Article 10 of the Convention, holding that society had a right to information but that any such information had to be truthful. The court concluded that the article in question had, however, contained untruthful information and the journalists had an obligation to remain neutral when commenting on facts.
On 17 April 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s attorney on 25 April 2014.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the protection of personal rights by means of the criminal law is set out in the Court’s judgment in the case of Gąsior v. Poland, no. 34472/07, §§ 21-22, 21 February 2012.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the domestic courts interfered with his right to freedom of expression.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
Leave a Reply