Communicated on 10 September 2019<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION
\nApplication no. 46296\/17
\nDanielSTO\u0141OWSKI
\nagainst Poland
\nlodged on 21 June 2017
\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
The applicant, Mr Daniel Sto\u0142owski, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Przemy\u015bl.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0 Publication<\/em><\/p>\n The applicant is a journalist and editor of a local Przemy\u015bl newspaper, the PrzemyskiTelegraf.<\/p>\n In August 2014 he published, both in a paper and an online edition thereof, an article headlined \u201cC\u2019s deal with R\u201d (Uk\u0142ad C z R). The article concerned a supposed corruption deal between a local private company R, which made window frames, and the town\u2019s mayor R.C. The company belonged to a certain A.P., privately the mayor\u2019s friend. A.P. was also a director of R\u2019s management board. The applicant recounted that R had allowed the mayor to use its advertisement boards free of charge in his election campaign, that its employees had put up the mayor\u2019s election posters and that it had employed an image\/PR expert for the mayor during the campaign. He suggested that these actions had reflected an illegal financing of R.C.\u2019s electoral campaign and that R had provided material benefits to R.C.\u2019s electoral committee. The journalist also stated that more than 80% of window frames installed in the public buildings had been produced by R and suggested that this might have been due to the mayor\u2019s involvement. In particular, he wrote that some of the window frames had been made by R for the town even before the end of the tender proceedings. Moreover, he put the question of whether this situation had already amounted to corruption, as penalised under criminal law, and cited the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. The applicant quoted a former employee of R\u2019s as an anonymous source of his information. He also relied on documents from the mayor\u2019s election campaign, which were public, including the campaign\u2019s financial statement. The latter lacked invoices for several (according to the applicant, most probably four) advertisement boards for seven advertisement banners named \u201cexternal banner – R\u201d which, in the applicant\u2019s view, suggested who had been the owner of the advertisement boards. Finally, he made some inquiries asking third persons and institutions about the owner of the advertisement banners, including the local sports centre which, by a letter dated 9 May 2014, informed him that an advertisement banner placed on its land was the property of R.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0 Criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/em><\/p>\n On 7 October 2014 company R lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant with the Przemy\u015bl District Court. It complained that the applicant had published untrue information, which could have undermined public confidence in the company\u2019s capacity necessary for business transactions. It\u00a0relied on Article 212 of the Criminal Code, penalising the offence of defamation (znies\u0142awienie).<\/p>\n On 11 October 2016 the Przemy\u015bl District Court (II K 1084\/14) delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant of defamation through the media under Article 212 of the Criminal Code. The court convicted him for stating that R had an ambiguous (niejasny) and corrupt deal with the town\u2019s mayor R.C., which consisted of engaging R\u2019s employees in putting up the mayor\u2019s election posters under threat of termination of their employment contracts, employing an image\/PR expert for the mayor\u2019s campaign, illegal financing of the mayor\u2019s electoral campaign by R and irregularities in public tenders to R\u2019s benefit (starting the production of the window frames for particular public buildings before the end of the tender procedure).The court sentenced the applicant to a fine of PLN\u00a02,000\u00a0(approximately EUR\u00a0500). It\u00a0also ordered him to pay PLN\u00a01,000\u00a0(approximately EUR 250) to charity, to reimburse PLN\u00a02,012\u00a0(approximately EUR 503) in costs and to publish the contents of its judgment in a local weekly newspaper, \u017byciePodkarpackie.<\/p>\n The district court found the following:<\/p>\n – The applicant had been convinced of the truthfulness of the article\u2019s submissions and had made them in defence of a justifiable public interest (that is a correct decision-making process by the electorate).<\/p>\n – While the article concerned mainly R.C., it resulted in defamation of a private company. There existed relations between R.C. and R; however, the proceedings regarded the company R and not the mayor R.C.<\/p>\n – The evidence gathered (statements by the applicant before the court, testimony by A.P., the published article in question, documents from the electoral campaign provided by R.C.\u2019s electoral committee, information obtained by the applicant from various local and public institutions as well as testimony from several third persons) did not confirm the veracity of the impugned statements, in particular those concerning the alleged financing of the mayor\u2019s electoral campaign by R. A.P. confirmed that he had been involved in the mayor\u2019s campaign, but as a private citizen. Moreover, A.P.\u2019s statement that the advertisement boards belonged to him and that he had lent them as a private person for the election campaign of his friend, mayor R.C., was credible.The applicant failed to prove that the advertisement boards had been the property of the company and not A.P.\u2019s private property. The fact that R had been the tenant of the land on which the boards had been placed did not justify the article\u2019s statements. Witness testimony by a certain R.K., a former employee of R, was presented to the court. This testimony had been given in a separate set of criminal proceedings concerning allegations of irregularities in tender proceedings, in which R had participated, and the illegal financing of R.C.\u2019s electoral campaign. It confirmed the article\u2019s submissions concerning the engaging of R\u2019s employees in putting up the mayor\u2019s election posters and employing an image\/PR expert for the mayor\u2019s campaign, but was considered \u201ctoo vague\u201d (og\u00f3lnikowe) to be relied on. The amount of window frames produced by R for the town had been marginal compared to its overall production and, thus, from an economic point of view any possible corruption dealings with the mayor would not have been worth R\u2019s effort (z ekonomicznegopunktuwidzenianies\u0105wartezachod\u00f3wkorupcyjnych).<\/p>\n – The applicant had failed to comply with the standards of journalistic diligence since his sources seemed inexistent or unreliable and he had published the article in the press without sufficient checks, if any. The publication of the article was, admittedly, preceded by the applicant\u2019s journalistic investigation. Yet, its results did not constitute an objective basis to publish the incriminated statements. The applicant had not made any attempts to verify the contents of his article directly with company R. He based his article to a large extent on the assertions of an anonymous informant. He did not distance himself from the information received from his informant, but identified himself with it.<\/p>\n – The imposed sentence was, in the court\u2019s view, proportionate to the social noxiousness of the applicant\u2019s offence. It was imposed taking into account the mitigating circumstances, such as the applicant\u2019s clean criminal record, the fact that he had published the incriminated statements during an electoral campaign and in good faith, as well as his financial situation.<\/p>\n The court dismissed the applicant\u2019s request to stay the judicial proceedings in order to await the outcome of the criminal investigation against R. The court found that it was not necessary since, firstly, it had already requested the information gathered in the other set of proceedings which it deemed relevant in the proceedings before it and, secondly, the applicant was not hindered in lodging any application for evidence in the pending proceedings. In this regard it has to be noted that the court asked the Prosecutor\u2019s Office whether, in the investigation proceedings, the applicant had revealed the name of his informant\/source.<\/p>\n The applicant appealed. He argued that the court had committed numerous errors of fact and law, among others by having dismissed some of the applicant\u2019s applications for evidence concerning the article\u2019s statements, in particular those seeking to oblige civil servants subordinate to the mayor to release the complete documentation on the public tenders, to hear witnesses (in particular the representatives of R.C.\u2019s electoral committee, R.C. and R.K.) and to assess the veracity of A.P.\u2019s testimony by admitting a letter of 9 May 2014 from a local sports centre informing the applicant that an advertisement board placed on its land, rented to R.C. for his electoral campaign, had been R.\u2019s property. The applicant submitted that he had established, based on a financial report of R.C.\u2019s electoral committee, that no invoices had been issued for the rental of the advertisement boards although this was required by law, and that the recipient of some boards had been R. He alleged that the testimony of R.C.\u2019s electoral committee representative for financial matters had been incoherent. He also stated that, when gathering material for his article, he had acted with due diligence required from a journalist and based the impugned statements on documents (in particular a report of R.C.\u2019s electoral committee), information received from his anonymous informant and public institutions under the Freedom of Information Act (Ustawa o dost\u0119pie do informacjipublicznej) as well as his own factual findings.The applicant also maintained that his conviction had been incompatible with the Convention provisions.<\/p>\n On 27 April 2017 the Przemy\u015bl Regional Court (II Ka 331\/16) upheld the contested judgment. It also ordered the applicant to pay PLN\u00a0420\u00a0(approximately EUR 105) in legal costs for the appeal proceedings. It shared the conclusions of the lower court on the legal assessment of the facts of the case. The court noted that the applicant had failed to prove the veracity of his statements and to comply with the standards of journalistic diligence while collecting material for his article.<\/p>\n A cassation appeal was not available.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the \u00a0protection of personal rights by means of the criminal law is set out in the Court\u2019s judgment in the case of G\u0105sior v. Poland, no. 34472\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a021-22, 21\u00a0February 2012.<\/p>\n COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the domestic courts interfered with his right to freedom of expression.<\/p>\n QUESTION TO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n Has there been an interference with the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article\u00a010 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued in terms of Article\u00a010 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention?<\/p>\n