Last Updated on November 4, 2019 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1443/11
Piotr PIOTROWICZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 February 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 December 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 11 July 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Piotr Piotrowicz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Jarocin. He was represented before the Court by Ms D. Bychawska-Siniarska, lawyer with the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights, a non‑governmental organisation based in Warsaw.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant, a local journalist, published an editorial, critical of a local mayor and the municipal council. The municipality brought civil proceedings against the applicant, claiming a breach of the municipality’s personal rights. The first two judgments were favourable to the applicant. However, following the Supreme Court judgment allowing the municipality’s appeal, the lower courts found against the applicant. They held that the applicant had breached the municipality’s right to good reputation. The applicant was obliged to publish an apology and to bear the municipality’s costs.
4. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the interference with his right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law as the municipality, as a legal person, could not have reasonably been considered to have personal rights. In addition, the interference with his rights was not necessary as the courts had failed to take into account the fact that his article had amounted to legitimate criticism of the public authorities.
5. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 11 July 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
7. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the violation of Article 10 of the Convention regarding the interference in the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.
In these circumstances and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay to the applicant the amount of PLN 8,000 (eight thousand Polish zloty) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points.
The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s lists of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
8. By a letter of 27 March 2015, the applicant objected to the Government’s proposal and requested the Court to continue the examination of his case.
9. The applicant argued that it would be unjustified to strike out his application on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declaration since the declaration did not satisfy the criteria established in the Court’s case-law. He submitted, in particular, that his case did not raise issues comparable to those that had been already determined by the Court.
10. The applicant maintained that the possibility for a municipality to sue for infringement of its personal rights was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention. In the Romanenko and Others judgment, the Court acknowledged that “there may be sound policy reasons to decide that public bodies should not have standing to sue in defamation in their own capacity” (Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 39, 8 October 2009). However, it did not develop a clear standard in respect of defamation cases brought by public bodies. In the case of the Court’s acceptance of the unilateral declaration, the applicant requested the Court to oblige the Government to publish its unilateral declaration on its web page and to make a public apology in one of the main Polish dailies.
11. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court, in particular, to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
12. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
13. To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
14. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to freedom of expression (see, for example, PedersenandBaadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, ECHR 2004‑XI; CumpǎnǎandMazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR 2004‑XI; Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland, no. 48723/07, 14 October 2014; and Marian Maciejewskiv. Poland, no. 34447/05, 13 January 2015). Furthermore, the Court has addressed the possibility for public bodies to rely on “the protection of the reputation or rights of others” under Article 10 of the Convention (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657/12, §§ 42‑50, 5 December 2017 and the cases referred to therein).
15. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
16. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
17. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
18. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 10 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 March 2018.
Renata Degener AlešPejchal
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply