Published on 12 December 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 43388/17 MLADINA D.D. LJUBLJANA against Slovenia lodged on 13 June 2017 communicated on 22 November 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the defamation proceedings instituted by Mr Grims (a well-known Slovenian politician, member of parliament and of the executive committee of the Slovenian Democratic Party) against the applicant company, who is a publisher of a political weekly magazine Mladina. The applicant company was found liable for defamation and ordered to publish the judgment and an apology and to pay compensation in the amount of 3,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Grims, because of the publication of a photo of Mr Grims and his family alongside a photo of the family of German Nazi politician Joseph Goebbels. The photo of Mr Grims and his family in question was taken at a public mass, at which (together with several other public and political figures) they participated and allowed for their photos to be taken and published in newspapers.

The photos of the two families (the applicant’s and that of Joseph Goebbels) and the accompanying brief commentary were part of the satirical section of the magazine Mladina issued on 4 March 2011. They were titled: “Not every Dr G. is already Dr Goebbels”. In the accompanying brief commentary, the journalist reacted to a debate which had previously been triggered by a publication on Facebook of a photo of Mr Grims alongside a photo of Joseph Goebbels. The same issue of the magazine contained also an article by the chief editor of Mladina in which he drew parallels between the political methods employed by the Slovenian Democratic Party, which was represented by, inter alia , Mr Grims, and that of the members of the Nazi Party.

In their assessment of the conflict between Mr Grims’ right to protect his reputation and the applicant company’s freedom of expression, the Slovenian courts, including the Constitutional Court, relied heavily on the specific effect that the photographs had on readers (as opposed to the text) and the resultant serious impact on the reputation of Mr Grims’ family.

Mr. Grims’ family members claimed compensation in a sperate set of proceedings. His three children were awarded EUR 14,000 in total. His wife and the applicant company reached a settlement agreement for an undisclosed sum.

The applicant company complains of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in relation to the judgments issued in the proceedings instituted by Mr Grims. It argues that the Slovenian courts disregarded or wrongly evaluated relevant aspects of the case, such as the satirical nature of the publication in question and the fact that Mr Grims was not attacked in his role as the father but in his role as the politician whose conduct was characterised by intolerance, xenophobia and nationalism and who himself exposed his family to public in order to attract the voters with traditional family values. The applicant company also points out that the impugned proceedings concerned only Mr Grims not his family (which obtained compensation in separate proceedings).

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, for instance, Grebneva and Alisimchik v. Russia , no. 8918/05, § 59, 22 November 2016; Mladina d.d. Ljubljana v. Slovenia , no. 20981/10, §§ 40 and 45, 17 April 2014; Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria , no. 39394/98, §§ 44 and 45, ECHR 2003-XI; and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 103, ECHR 2012)?