Last Updated on November 1, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 23 March 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 64909/16
Maria Henryka SZYPROWSKA
against Poland
lodged on 28 October 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Maria Henryka Szyprowska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Bełchatów.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background
The applicant is a retired construction engineer. She belongs to the housing co-operative (wspólnota mieszkaniowa) named “Dziewiątka” in Bełchatów, as she owns a flat in one of the co-operative’s buildings.
The housing co-operative decided to have the applicant’s building renovated for approximately 800,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately 200,000 euros (EUR)). The applicant and a few other members of the co‑operative tried but failed in convincing the management that certain works were not necessary. The housing co-operative carried out the tender and selected a company, owned by a certain A.O., to perform the works.
The applicant criticised the project at the housing co-operative meetings and in the letters to its management board. She argued that the tender was not fair and A.O. was not a real construction engineer or did not have sufficient experience. Later, she wrote three letters to the Bełchatów Mayor, expressing her doubts as to the justification of the renovation decision and the quality of the works performed. She suggested inter alia that A.O.: was not a real construction engineer, had influenced the tender and his construction works were of poor quality. Subsequently, these letters were published in the local newspaper.
2. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 21 December 2011 A.O. filed a private bill of indictment, accusing the applicant of defamation. In particular, he submitted that the articles in the local newspaper had damaged his reputation and good name and therefore, had resulted in a loss of trust, which was very important for his professional activity.
On 14 March 2013 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) found inter alia the applicant guilty of defamation and discontinued the proceedings for a probationary term of one year.
On 5 July 2013 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first instance court’s judgment, after the applicant’s appeal, and remitted the case in view of procedural shortcomings.
On 30 December 2015 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court found the applicant guilty of defamation under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code, discontinued the proceedings for a probationary term of one year and ordered the applicant to pay: PLN 500 (approximately EUR 125) to charity, PLN 500 (approximately EUR 125) to A.O. and PLN 1,664 (approximately EUR 416) in costs (including A.O.’s representation costs). The first‑instance court heard the parties and several witnesses. It relied on an expert opinion in which an expert had found that some of the works were defective. On this basis the court established inter alia that the evidence and testimony before it did not confirm that A.O.: had not been acquainted with his profession, had not been a real constructor, had influenced the result of the tender or his construction works had been of poor quality.
The applicant appealed, essentially repeating the arguments which she had already raised before the first-instance-court. She added that she had not sent the impugned articles to the newspaper.
On 24 May 2016 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court upheld the findings of facts of the first instance court in the essential part. It held that the applicant had conveyed her letters to the Bełchatów Mayor to the local newspaper in order to have them published, which had resulted in defamation of A.O. In the court’s opinion, the applicant’s statement – that A.O. entered into illegal agreement with other persons in order to win the tender – had no objective justification in the facts of the case and therefore aimed at humiliating A.O. and resulted in A.O.’s loss of professional trust. In addition, the court ordered the applicant to pay PLN 920 (approximately EUR 230) in costs (including A.O.’s representation costs).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that her conviction for defamation constituted an unjustified and disproportionate interference with her freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. She also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings and that the proceedings in question were unfair and arbitrary. Under the same provision she complains of the alleged non-compliance with the presumption of innocence and with the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for the ruling.
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?
Leave a Reply