CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 juin 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 43 June 2002 Wierzbicki v. Poland - 24541/94 Judgment 18.6.2002 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Refusal to summon witnesses and unavailability of evidence covered by official secrecy: no violation Facts : The applicant was an editor-in-chief of a newspaper which in 1993 published a list of informants of the Communist secret police which had been submitted to Parliament by the Minister for Internal Affairs. The list was confidential but had been leaked to the public. The newspaper also published several names which it stated had been deleted from the list due to the lack of conclusive evidence. One of these persons, S.N., a candidate in the forthcoming elections, brought an action against the applicant. The applicant’s request for certain witnesses to be heard was dismissed on the ground that the witnesses could only give evidence as to whether S.N.’s name appeared on the list and not as to whether he had in fact been an informant. The court also noted that the Ministry had refused to submit documents requested by the applicant, on the ground that they were covered by official secrecy and could only be disclosed for the purposes of criminal proceedings. The court ordered the applicant to revoke his statements publicly. The applicant’s appeal was rejected. Law : Article 6 § 1 – The applicant’s newspaper published information which could clearly be considered defamatory. As it was undisputed that S.N.’s name had not been on the list submitted to Parliament, the applicant could not have supposed that the information was simply part of an official document. As a journalist, he was not under an obligation to prove that the statements were true but he could reasonably have been expected to have some reliable grounds for believing that they corresponded to the truth. However, in view of the reasons given for the deletion of S.N.’s name from the list, the applicant must have been aware that there was insufficient evidence to establish that S.N. had been an informant. Moreover, there was no indication that, had the applicant had any documentary evidence capable of supporting the allegation, he would not have been able to adduce such evidence before the courts. As to whether the Ministry’s refusal to produce secret documents constituted an undue restriction on the applicant’s right to adduce evidence in support of his case, the prohibition on disclosure was not a blanket one but limited disclosure to criminal proceedings and the applicant was or should have been aware that any documents containing such information were covered by official secrecy. Moreover, his request was not rejected de plano , since the court requested the Ministry to submit the documents.   As to the refusal to hear witnesses, the courts examined the applicant’s requests and gave detailed reasons for their refusals, which were not arbitrary. Thus, the refusal to take evidence proposed by the applicant did not amount to a disproportionate restriction on his ability to present arguments in support of his case. Conclusion : no violation (6 votes to 1).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes