Communicated on 18 December 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 72274/13 Andrzej WÓJCIK and Micha ł MATKOWSKI against Poland lodged on 6 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Mr Andrzej Wójcik and Mr Michał Matkowski , are Polish nationals who were born in 1945 and 1959 respectively and live in Raszówka .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background

The applicants, who were residents of Raszówka , entered into a dispute with I.R., the mayor of Lubin Commune ( Wójt Gminy ).

In June 2011 Lubin Commune Council ( Rada Gminy ) decided to close the local library, which had been serving the residents of four neighbouring villages since 1947. The applicants submitted that the decision in question had been taken without any consultations with the local community. Some of the residents decided to sign a petition, in which they asked the mayor and the Commune Council not to close the library. The petition was signed by 350 residents and was sent to different authorities and media representatives on 10 August 2011.

Soon afterwards, the local television station ( TVL Lubin ) broadcast a report about the residents ’ attempts to save the library. The applicants claim that after the report was broadcast, local authorities started to put pressure on the participants of the campaign against the closure of the library. Some of the campaigners decided to pull out. The applicants claim that it happened because the authorities had said that there would be negative repercussions if they continued to actively participate in the campaign.

2. The applicants ’ action in respect of the mayor of Lubin Commune

By a letter dated 19 September 2011 the applicants informed different authorities and media representatives that:

“1. In response, I.R. mobilised and used harassment against people who had taken part in the campaign and were employed within the Commune; 2. The campaigners were threatened that they would be dismissed from work if they did not stop supporting actions against the closure of the library; 3. I.R. ’ s visits to Brussels were tourist trips; 4. After the local television station had broadcast the report about the residents ’ attempts to save the library, the librarian was threatened with a reprimand for her active participation in the campaign without the consent of the Commune ’ s representatives (isn ’ t that a violation of fundamental human rights?); 5. I.R. ’ s behaviour was discreditable and directed against Polish culture and against the Polish nation and national minorities, and so should be condemned” ( 1. W odpowiedzi Pani Wójt też się zmobilizowała i zastosowała mobbing w stosunku do tych, którzy wzięli udział w proteście, a są zatrudnieni w ośrodkach gminnych; 2. Zaczęto im grozić, że zostaną zwolnieni, jeżeli nie odwołają swojego poparcia, nie przestaną przeciwdziałać decyzji likwidacji Biblioteki; 3. Wyjazdy Pani Wójt były wycieczkami turystycznymi do Brukseli; 4. Po emisji programu w TVL Lubin grożono naganą A.H., bibliotekarce za to, że wystąpiła w obronie biblioteki przed mediami bez zgody władz Gminy. Czy to nie jest łamanie podstawowych praw człowieka?; 5. Postępowanie Pani Wójt i Rady Gminy Lubin uważamy za rzecz niegodną, wymierzoną przeciw Kulturze Polskiej i Łemkowskiej, tym samym przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu i Mniejszościom Narodowym i jako taką godną ogólnego potępienia ).

The letter was subsequently sent by the applicants to the following authorities and media representatives: the mayor of Lubin Commune; the head of Lubin Commune Council ( Przewodniczący Rady Gminy ); the Department of State Property at the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage in Warsaw ( Departament Mienia Państwowego przy Ministerstwie Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego ); the governor of Dolnośląskie Province ( Wojewoda ); the Marshall ’ s Office in Wrocław ( Urząd Marszałkowski ); the District Office in Lubin ( Starostwo Powiatowe ); TVL Lubin Odra ( TVL Lubin sieć Odra ); TVN Warsaw Television ( TVN Warszawa ); Radio Plus Legnica; Ms Elżbieta Jaworowicz of Polish Television ( TVP – Pani Elżbieta Jaworowicz – Sprawa dla Reportera ); and the Łemkowie Minority Association ( Stowarzyszenie Mniejszości Łemkowskiej ). The applicants attached to the letter their petition dated 10 August 2011.

3. Criminal proceedings for defamation

On 16 January 2012 I.R. brought a private prosecution, accusing the applicants of defamation. In particular, she submitted that the content of the letter of 19 September 2011 had resulted in a loss of public trust which was essential for her political career.

During the trial, the applicants argued that they had not exceeded the limits of fair criticism in respect of I.R. Consequently, they did not plead guilty. The applicants also stated that they had only wanted to prevent the closure of the local library so their actions had been for the benefit of the public. They also confirmed that after the programme had been broadcast on local television, the librarian had been threatened with a reprimand because of her active participation in the campaign.

On 12 December 2012 the Lubin District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) convicted the applicants of defamation under Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code, conditionally discontinued the proceedings, and fined them each 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately EUR 250), to be payable to charity. They were also ordered to pay PLN 2160 (approximately EUR 540) in costs (including I.R. ’ s representation costs) .

The first-instance court heard several witnesses. It observed that the evidence and testimony before it did not confirm in any way the applicants ’ statements no. 1 and 3 ( harassment of people who took part in the campaign and that I.R. ’ s visits to Brussels were allegedly tourist trips ). Consequently, the court considered the statements untrue. The words used by the applicants in the impugned sentences gave their personal opinion about I.R., which had no objective justification in the facts of the case. Therefore, the two sentences had been aimed at humiliating I.R. and discrediting her in the eyes of the authorities and local community. The trial court observed that the content of the impugned statements could have resulted in I.R. losing the public trust necessary for her political career.

The applicants appealed, essentially repeating the arguments they had raised before the first-instance court. They also emphasised that the impugned judgment was not in accordance with the provisions guaranteed by the Polish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 11 April 2013 the Legnica Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) upheld the first-instance court ’ s findings of fact and law and dismissed the applicants ’ appeal as manifestly unfounded. It referred to the reasons given by the Lubin District Court and held that the applicants ’ allegations used in the letter in sentences no. 1 and 3 were harmful to the public trust required for I.R. ’ s function and objectively untrue since the mayor had not been on personal trips to Brussels while exercising her mandate and had not harassed her political opponents . The appellate court ordered each of applicants to pay PLN 480 (approximately EUR 120) in costs (including I.R. ’ s representation costs).

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain that their conviction for defamation constituted an unjustified and disproportionate interference with their freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?