Communicated on 5 November 2020 Published on 23 November 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 35606/19 Karolina SYROKA against Poland lodged on 28 June 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Karolina Syroka , is a Polish national, who was born in 1996 and lives in Urzędów .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

She was a student at the School of Farming Technique located in P. On 17 November 2016 she wrote a letter entitled “complaint” to the Lublin Superintendent ( Kurator OÅ›wiaty ). In the letter she complained about alleged negligence on the part of the School ’ s headmaster J.B. and the director of practical education A.K. In particular, she claimed that A.K. had failed to register her for a professional exam and that he did not have necessary qualifications to teach vocational subjects ( ksztaÅ‚cenie praktyczne ). She alleged that A.K. ’ s negligence had been an intentional act of vengeance and indicated that in 2015 she informed the police about alleged bullying she had experienced from her peers, to which another teacher failed to respond. She also mentioned several other teachers who ‑ she claimed – were incompetent. She requested the Superintendent to conduct an inspection at the school and to punish those responsible for negligence.

The Superintendent conducted several inspections at the school and determined that A.K. ’ s personal file did not contain the required documents confirming his professional qualifications. No other irregularities were discovered.

On 28 April 2017 five private bills of indictment ( prywatny akt oskarżenia ) were lodged against the applicant with the Kraśnik District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ). Among private prosecutors ( oskarżyciel prywatny ) were J.B., A.K. and three other teachers mentioned in her letter. They alleged that the applicant had defamed ( znies ławienie ) them and that, as a consequence, they faced loss of trust necessary to perform their functions.

On 3 September 2018 the applicant was conditionally discharged ( warunkowe umorzenie postępowania ) as regards three counts of defamation. The applicant was put on probation for two years. She was acquitted of two further counts of defamation. The court ordered her to apologise to J.B., A.K. and teacher M.P. She was also ordered to reimburse the costs of proceedings to the victims of defamation (900 Polish zloty (PLN) – approximately 225 euros (EUR)). The court held that the applicant had intentionally provided the Superintendent with defaming information in order to damage the reputation of J.B., A.K. and M.P.

The applicant appealed against that judgment. Her lawyer argued, among other things, that the letter to the Superintendent contained value judgments rather than statements of fact.

On 24 January 2019 the Lublin Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) altered the first-instance judgement and acquitted the applicant of defaming M.P.; however, it upheld the remainder of that judgment. The court held that the applicant had intentionally provided false information to the Superintendent. It further noted that she had been well aware of the character of information included in her complaint, thus she could not have claimed that they constituted value judgements.

Relevant domestic law and practice concerning freedom of expression, its limitations, criminal liability for defamation and conditional discharge are set out in the Court ’ s judgements in cases of Kącki v. Poland , no. 10947/11, § § 20-28 , 4 July 2017 and Długołęcki v. Poland , no. 23806/03, §§ 14-16 , 24 February 2009 .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention that her freedom of expression was violated. She claims that she had no intention of defaming J.B. and A.K., but only wanted a competent body to investigate irregularities, which she believed were taking place at her school .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression , contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the cha racterisation of the applicant ’ s utterances as statements of fact, rather than value judgments, justified?