CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 20 December 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 32512/20 Małgorzata SIENKIEWICZ-WOSKOWICZ against Poland lodged on 24 July 2020 communicated on 1 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns freedom of expression. During a session of the municipal council a local councillor criticised a local weekly, financed by the municipality, and the applicant (its editor-in-chief) for mismanagement of funds and suggested that the weekly should have been closed. In reply, the applicant published a critical article about the councillor entitled “ Herostratus. Or maybe [K.K.]? ” The councillor lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant, charging her with defamation. The trial court conditionally discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for a probationary period, which implied that she had committed the impugned offence. It ordered the applicant to publish an apology, pay damages to the councillor and bear the costs of the proceedings. The court found that the applicant had defamed the councillor by making false allegations against him and comparing him to Herostratus and K.K., a controversial candidate in local elections. The appellate court mostly upheld the first-instance decision. The   applicant complains under Article 10 that the domestic courts’ decisions breached her right to freedom of expression.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, was the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression “necessary in a democratic society”? In that regard, was the characterisation of the applicant’s utterances as statements of fact, rather than value judgments, justified?