CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBC0596D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:200%; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 18 December 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 10949/15 Krzysztof ŁABĄDŹ against Poland lodged on 23 February 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Łabądź, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Katowice. He is represented before the Court by Mr   T.   Pęcherek, a lawyer practising in Katowice. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background The applicant worked in a coal mine owned by the company J.S.W. S.A. In 2009 the management board ( Zarząd ) of the company addressed a number of issues concerning how to deal with an economic crisis in its field of economic activity. In particular, there was consideration of whether the company should be subjected to privatisation. The trade unions functioning in the company opposed that proposal. One of the trade unions decided to organise demonstrations in front of the houses of two members of the management board, including M.Ś., a deputy president of the management board. 2.     Demonstrations in front of M.Ś.’s home On 5, 6 and 7 May 2009 demonstrations involving approximately ten people took place in front of M.Ś.’s house. The applicant was an organiser and participated in at least one of those demonstrations on 5 May 2009. The protesters stood next to the entrance gate to M.Ś.’s property and held banners reading “Stop the tacit and treacherous privatisation” (“ Stop cichej podstępnej prywatyzacji ”) and “Down with Ś., the lackey” (“ Precz z pachołkiem Ś. ”). They also distributed leaflets in the form of a wanted poster with M.Ś’s picture on it, and leaflets containing an image of M.Ś. dressed as a pirate. The leaflets alleged, inter alia , that M.Ś. had broken the law by terminating agreements with the trade unions, and that he had taken a number of decisions which were disadvantageous for the company and aimed at lowering its value in order to privatise it. The exact wording of the statements in the leaflets has not been submitted to the Court. The applicant talked to bystanders and journalists about alleged irregularities in the management of the company. Local and national newspapers, as well as some radio stations and websites, reported on the demonstrations. 3.     Civil proceedings against the applicant M.Ś. lodged a civil action with the Gliwice Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ), requesting legal protection of his personal rights. He asked that the applicant be ordered to publish a statement apologising for damaging his reputation and to pay 5,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 1,250 euros (EUR)) to a charity. He did not lodge any separate claim for compensation. On 26 June 2012 the Gliwice Regional Court (case no. II C 127/12) gave a default judgment ( wyrok zaoczny ). The domestic court allowed the claimant’s action and ordered the applicant to publish the following statement in a local newspaper ( Dziennik Zachodni ) and two magazines ( Górnik and Tygodnik Solidarność ): “I, Krzysztof Łabądź, express my regret and apologise to Mr M.Ś. that through my behaviour during the demonstrations in front of Mr Ś.’s house on 5, 6 and 7 May 2009, in particular by disseminating false information about him, I damaged Mr M.Ś’s reputation” (“ Ja, Krzysztof Łabądź wyrażam ubolewanie i przepraszam Pana M.Ś. za to, że swoim zachowaniem w trakcie manifestacji pod domem Pana Ś. w dniach 5, 6 i 7 maja 2009 roku w szczególności poprzez podawanie nieprawdziwych informacji na temat jego osoby, naruszyłem dobre imię Pana M.Ś. ”) The court also ordered that the applicant pay PLN 5,000 (approximately EUR 1,250) to a charity and PLN 1,210 (approximately EUR 300) in court costs. The judgment was immediately enforceable. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 18 February 2013 the Gliwice Regional Court (case no. II C 127/12) gave a judgment in which it modified the wording of the statement that the applicant had been ordered to publish. The court ordered the applicant to publish the following statement: “I, Krzysztof Łabądź, express my regret and apologise to Mr M.Ś. for the infringement of his personal rights that took place on 5 May 2009 during the demonstration in front of his house” (“ Ja, Krzysztof Łabądź wyrażam ubolewanie i przepraszam Pana M.Ś. za naruszenie jego dóbr osobistych w dniu 5 maja 2009 roku w trakcie manifestacji pod jego domem ”). The court upheld the remainder of the default judgment of 26 June 2012. During the proceedings the claimant argued that the demonstrations had disturbed him and his wife and had had a negative impact on his relations with his neighbours, who had asked him questions about his actions involving his company. The Gliwice Regional Court held that the applicant had been one of the organisers of the demonstration which had taken place on 5 May 2009, and had been aware of the content of the placards held by its participants and the leaflets distributed by them. As one of the people responsible for order during the gathering, he could be held liable for the content of that material. The domestic court stressed that that material contained the claimant’s name and statements alleging that he had taken actions detrimental to the interests of the company and its employees, and therefore labelled him an incompetent manager. The material therefore infringed his right to protection of his name and image, especially as the applicant had not proved that M.Ś. had committed any criminal offence related to his work as a member of the management board of the company and had not substantiated the allegations concerning mismanagement of the company. The court of first instance also found that the statements made by the applicant and the other participants in the demonstration could be viewed and heard not only by the claimant’s family, but also by his neighbours, bystanders and people who had read the articles in the press and listened to the radio programmes. Moreover, the Gliwice Regional Court noted that the demonstration in question had been held in front of M.Ś.’s property and had caused him and his family distress. Therefore, the applicant had also infringed the claimant’s right to the inviolability of his home. In the domestic court’s view, this infringement was not justified by any public interest and did not constitute a legitimate form of criticism. The applicant should have opted for legal forms of protest provided for employees and trade unions by law. The court also emphasised that, although the members of the trade unions had the right to criticise decisions taken by the management of the company, that criticism should not affect the private life of the members of the management board and their families. The domestic court noted that the amount the applicant was supposed to pay to a charity was lower than his monthly income. On 13 August 2013 the Katowice Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) (case no. V ACa 281/13) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and ordered him to pay PLN 720 (approximately EUR 180) in court costs. The second-instance court, in principle, agreed with the reasoning presented by the Gliwice Regional Court. It emphasised that the right to the inviolability of one’s home encompassed not only the right to protection against physical intrusion, but also the right to enjoy security and peace in one’s home, and held that the applicant’s actions had infringed M.Ś.’s right in this respect. It held that the infringement had to be considered unlawful, especially owing to the fact that the demonstrations in front of the claimant’s house had in no way related to his private or family life. The court also indicated that the use of the claimant’s image and name – especially in the context of suggesting that he was a criminal – had violated his legitimate expectation of privacy. The appellate court underlined that the statements made by the protesters had been untrue and unjust, and had not been made in the context of irony or satire. Moreover, the Katowice Court of Appeal confirmed the court of first instance’s view that the applicant’s behaviour as an individual during the demonstration was irrelevant for the assessment of his liability, as he had been an organiser of the demonstration, had been aware of the content of both the banners and the leaflets, and had been a person responsible for presenting the views of the protesters to the journalists observing and reporting on the demonstration. On 29 August 2014 the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) (case no. V CSK 40/14) refused to entertain a cassation appeal by the applicant on account of the lack of important legal issues to be considered in the case and the applicant’s failure to substantiate that the cassation appeal was manifestly well-founded. COMPLAINTS The applicant, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, complains that, by finding against him, the domestic courts violated his freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES In view of the judgment of the Gliwice Regional Court of 18 February 2013:   1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention?   3.     What was the exact content of the statements made and material distributed by the applicant and other participants at the demonstration which took place on 5 May 2009? The parties are requested to provide copies of the leaflets distributed during the demonstration.