Communicated on 6 April 2018

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 55297/16 Marcin ROMANOWSKI against Poland lodged on 15 September 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Marcin Romanowski , is a Polish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Warsaw. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Zaborowski , a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

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

From 2005 to 2007 the applicant worked in the Ministry of Justice as an assistant and, later on, as an advisor to the Minister of Justice. After he left this employment, the Ministry informed public opinion that the laptops used by the former Minister and the applicant were seriously damaged.

On 1 February 2008 the new Minister of Justice, Z.Ć. stated at a press conference that the laptops in question had “physically [been] destroyed” and that the distraction “had not been accidental”.

The applicant brought a civil action for personal rights ’ infringement against Minister Z.Ć.

On 18 March 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) obliged the defendant to issue an apology and to publish it on various news websites, and to pay the applicant 6,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 1,360 euros, EUR).

On 24 January 2014 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( SÄ…d Apelacyjny ) slightly modified the content of the apology to be given by the defendant and limited it to a press statement to be sent to the Polish Press Agency.

On 23 July 2015 the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy ) quashed the judgment of the appellate court and remitted the case with the following observations. The applicant should be considered a public person. The remarks made by the defendant were of public interest and, thought proven untrue, were part of a political process related to the change of the management of the Ministry of Justice and, therefore, were protected under Article 10 of the Convention.

On 6 October 2015 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s action, considering itself bound by the Supreme Court ’ s interpretation of the applicable law.

The applicant decided not to bring another cassation appeal as, in his view it would have no prospects of success.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, invoking Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention of the breach of his right to respect for his private life.

In particular, he submits that his work in the Ministry of Justice was analytical and it did not involve any public appearances or engagement with political life. In parallel, he worked as an assistant professor at the university. In his opinion, the untrue allegations of him being responsible for intentional destruction of public property has damaged his reputation both as a civil servant and an academic. The applicant also stresses that the statements in question were made by the Minister of Justice (who was also at that time, the Prosecutor General), who should have made careful statements about the facts before the proper investigation was concluded.

The applicant also argues that the Supreme Court and, consequently, the appellate court were not justified in concluding that he should be considered a public person and, thus, afforded lesser protection against criticism, and that the remarks made by the defendant concerned opinions, not facts.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life and reputation, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see among others, mutatis mutandis , Chauvy and Others v. France , no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004 VI; Pfeifer v. Austria , no. 12556/03, § 35, 15 November 2007; and Karakó v. Hungary , no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009)?