CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 septembre 2022

.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 } Published on 3 October 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8341/20 Mariusz WOŁOSZ against Poland lodged on 30 January 2020 communicated on 14 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, a member of the Bytom City Council and a member of the Civic Platform political party. In 2016 and 2017 he published on his Facebook page several entries criticising the then Mayor of Bytom, D.B., who lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. The applicant was found liable for defamation of D.B., ordered to pay a fine of 900 Polish Zlotys (PLN) (approximately 225 euros (EUR)) and PLN   500 (approximately EUR 125) to the Polish Red Cross as a form of punitive damages. The applicant complains that his right to freedom of expression has been violated. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 §   1 of the Convention (see Długołęcki v.   Poland , no.   23806/03, 24 February 2009; Zybertowicz v.   Poland , no.   59138/10, 17 January 2017; and Banaszczyk v.   Poland , no.   66299/10, 21   December 2021)? If so, was that interference lawful and justified in terms of Article   10 §   2?