CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 octobre 2024

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } Published on 28 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 40317/19 Paweł ZIĘBA against Poland and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 7 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants for expressing criticism of public figures or entities. The details of each application can be found in the appended table. The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that the domestic courts interfered with their right to freedom of expression. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the interference with each applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see, Kurłowicz v. Poland , no.   41029/06, 22 June 2010; Zybertowicz v.   Poland , no.   59138/10, 17 January 2017; Kącki v. Poland , no. 10947/11, 4   July 2017; Brzeziński v. Poland , no. 47542/07, 25 July 2019; and Banaszczyk v. Poland , no.   66299/10, 21   December 2021)?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location   Relevant facts 1. 40317/19 Zięba v. Poland 19/07/2019 Paweł ZIĘBA 1976 Przedbórz Polish Joanna KORNASZEWSKA Warsaw The applicant claims to be a local watchdog. On 24 October 2016, relying on Article 61 of the Polish Constitution on the right to information, he asked the local police station commander, M.P., to disclose a list of local district officers ( dzielnicowy ) and their contact information, as well as the areas they were assigned to monitor. The applicant also inquired about the e-mail address of the police station. On 3 November 2016 M.P. informed the applicant that he should have relied on the relevant provisions of the Act on Access to Public Information ( ustawa o dostępie do informacji publicznej ) and submit the request in the form required by law. M.P. also informed the applicant that the relevant information was available on the website of the station and its mobile application. It does not appear that that information was in fact at the relevant time accessible on the website. The following day the applicant published on his website his correspondence with M.P. The applicant mocked M.P.’s ignorance of the law, explaining that the domestic regulation did not require a particular form of the request to access public information. The applicant quoted relevant provisions of the law and case-law. He called M.P. a dilettante and a comedian. On 6 November 2016 the applicant reproduced this content in a letter sent to M.P. He also renewed his request for information. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown to the Court. On 28 June 2017, the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with defaming and insulting a public official in the performance of official duties. The Radomsko District Court convicted the applicant of insulting a public official, an offence punishable under Articles 212 and 226 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to a fine of 1,500 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 375 euros (EUR)). The court observed that the applicant’s only motivation had been to discredit M.P., to show his lack of capacity to hold the position, and to humiliate him in the public eye. The court stated that the contents of the impugned text had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism. The Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court upheld the judgment and, on 21 January 2019 the judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer. 2. 11126/20 Gasiński v. Poland 04/02/2020 Bogdan GASIŃSKI 1971 Czarne Polish   On 30 July 2015, the applicant, who is a prisoner, sent a letter to the President of the Wrocław Regional Court, complaining that the Wrocław Detention Centre Governor promoted crime, favoured criminals and murderers, and was a criminal himself. On 29 December 2015, the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant. The Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court convicted the applicant of insulting a public official, an offence under Article 226 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment. The court observed that the applicant had had a right to criticise the authorities. However, the impugned letter had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism. The Wrocław Regional Court upheld this judgment and, on 7 November 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. 3. 37030/20 Maziarz v. Poland 17/08/2020 Lucjan MAZIARZ 1956 Leszno Polish Krzysztof NAWROCKI Leszno From 2017 to 2018 the applicant corresponded with the management board of the housing cooperative where he lived. In his letters, the applicant accused the board of various actions that he considered “illegal” and “unscrupulous”. On 18 October 2018 the members of the board lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. The Leszno District Court convicted the applicant of defamation, an offence under Article 212 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to a fine of PLN 2,550 (approximately EUR 640). The court observed that the applicant had exceeded the limits of allowed criticism and stressed that the correspondence, given its formal character, had been accessible to a significant group of persons. On 20 February 2020 the Poznań Regional Court upheld the judgment. 4. 37221/20 Ostrowski v. Poland 10/08/2020 Robert OSTROWSKI 1967 Międzybórz Polish   In October 2017 the applicant received, from an anonymous source, a record of irregularities of a tender procedure organised by J.G., the Mayor of Międzybórz Commune. On 25 October 2017 the applicant handed over these documents to the Central Anti-corruption Bureau ( Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne – “the CBA”). On 8 June 2018 the applicant addressed the City Council with a petition, reiterating his claims as presented to the CBA. On 13 June 2018 a session of the City Council was to be held, during which the Mayor was to be granted a vote of confidence. On 12 July 2018 the Mayor lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. The Oleśnica District Court convicted the applicant of defamation, an offence under Article 212 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to a fine of PLN 1,000 (approximately EUR 250) and payment of PLN 500 (approximately EUR 125) to a charity. The court observed that the applicant had the right to criticise the authorities. His petition, however, had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism and constituted distribution of false and slanderous information to the public. On 30 December 2019 the Wrocław Regional Court upheld this judgment. 5. 47707/20 Kos v. Poland 16/10/2020 Dariusz KOS 1974 Zory Polish Konrad SIEMASZKO Warsaw The applicant claims to be a local watchdog. On 25 June 2018 the applicant published a short news item on his Facebook page, stating that a municipal company, N.M., had broken Facebook’s internal regulation and had created a company profile within the private person framework. The applicant asked whether N.M.’s board had to always break the law, even internal regulations, and whether it could not live without breaking the law. On an unspecified date, N.M. lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. The Żory District Court convicted the applicant of defamation via mass media, an offence under Article 212 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced the applicant to a fine of PLN 500 (approximately EUR 100). The court observed that, at the time of publication, the applicant had not had any evidence indicating that N.M. had broken the law, much less that such had been a frequent or notorious practice. On 2 March 2020 the Gliwice Regional Court upheld the judgment. 6. 12941/23 Stępniewski v. Poland 09/03/2023 Marcin STĘPNIEWSKI 1992 Kielce Polish Agata BZDYŃ Warsaw The applicant is a member of the Kielce City Council. In June 2020 he published a short news item on his Facebook page, claiming that the local authorities of his city had offered preferential financial treatment to members of a named political party. He repeated the allegations in a TV interview, additionally accusing B.W., the then Mayor of Kielce, of intimidation and censorship. On 2 September 2020, B.W. and a third party concerned lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. The Kielce District Court convicted the applicant of defamation, an offence under Article 212 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to a fine of PLN 1,800 (approximately EUR 500) and to payment of PLN 2,000 (approximately EUR 500) to a charity. The court further ordered the applicant to publish the judgment on his Facebook page. The court observed that the impugned statements had exceeded the limits of acceptable criticism and constituted dissemination of false information. The court did not address the necessity of the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. On 8 September 2022 the Kielce Regional Court upheld the judgment. 7. 12946/23 Winiarski v. Poland 14/03/2023 Dawid WINIARSKI 1994 Warszawa Polish Agata BZDYŃ Warsaw The applicant considers himself an activist. On 1 March 2020 he participated in a protest in the vicinity of a church. A group of police officers was present at the scene. During the protest, the applicant used a term “moron(s) in a uniform” without interacting with any specific police officer at the time. Subsequently, the applicant was forcefully placed in a police car and taken to and held at the police station. The prosecuting authorities lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant. He was charged with insulting a public official in the performance of official duties, an offence punishable under Article 226 of the Criminal Code. The Warszawa Praga-Południe District Court conditionally discontinued the proceedings and ordered the applicant to pay PLN 100 (approximately EUR 25) in compensation. The court did not determine the exact wording of the impugned statement. It considered the applicant’s explanations, that the statement had concerned actions of the police force in general, as reality-distorting defence strategy. The court did not address the necessity of the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. On 30 September 2022 the Warszawa-Praga Regional Court upheld the judgment. It was served on the applicant on 14 November 2022. 8. 18738/23 Gągorowski v. Poland 28/04/2023 Paweł GĄGOROWSKI 1974 Kielce Polish   The applicant is an attorney. In February 2019 acting as a representative of the Mayor of Kielce, he communicated with journalists and spoke at a press conference. The exchanges concerned the alleged misconduct of a public official, R.P., resulting in the latter’s disciplinary dismissal. The applicant also commented on the technical state of a building R.P. managed, and the potential threats to life and health that it posed. On an unspecified date, R.P. lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant. The Kielce District Court convicted the applicant of defamation an offence under Article 212 of the Criminal Code and ordered him to pay a fine of PLN 6,000 (approximately EUR 1,500) and to pay PLN 5,000 (approximately EUR 1,200) to a charity. The court observed that the impugned statements constituted dissemination of false information. The court did not address the necessity of the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. Upon the applicant’s appeal, on 8 November 2022 the Kielce Regional Court changed the lower court’s judgment, conditionally discontinuing the proceedings, and ordering the applicant to pay PLN 5,000 (approximately EUR 1,200) to a national Fund for Support to Crime Victims. The court observed that the applicant had only relayed the information that had been provided to him by the city authorities.