JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES Sir NICOLAS BRATZA AND MARUSTE

We are unable to share the view of the majority of the Chamber that the applicant’s rights under Article 10 of the Convention were not violated in the present case. In our view, the prosecution of the applicant and the imposition on him of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for insulting a public prosecutor, P., was neither a response to a pressing social need nor proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued.

Like the majority of the Chamber, we accept that the impugned statements were of a serious nature, accusing P., as they did, of an abuse of his powers as a prosecutor and going as far as to impute to P. the acceptance of a bribe. We accept, too, the finding of the domestic courts that the accusations had not been proved by the applicant to be true and that they were insulting of P.

However, unlike the majority of the Chamber, we attach central, if not decisive, importance to the fact that the impugned statements which were the subject of the prosecution were not made to the media or otherwise published by the applicant to the outside world but were contained in two letters, the first addressed personally to P. himself and the second to the General Prosecutor, in his capacity as P.’s ultimate hierarchical superior.

The Court has in several cases observed (see, in particular, Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, ECHR 1999-I, and Nikula v. Finland , no. 31611/96, ECHR 2002-II) that it may be necessary to protect public servants, including prosecutors, from offensive, abusive and defamatory attacks which are calculated to affect them in the performance of their duties and to damage public confidence in them and the office they hold. However, these cases have all concerned written or verbal attacks made in public and not, as in the present case, those made in private correspondence to the public servant concerned, where the same considerations do not appear to us to apply. Not only are the limits of acceptable criticism of a public servant wider than in relation to private individuals, but public servants must be prepared to tolerate such criticism, where it is personally addressed to them in private correspondence, even where such criticism is expressed in abusive, strong or intemperate terms and even where it consists of serious and unfounded allegations. Where as here the allegations are contained in a personal letter addressed to the public servant in question, it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that resort to criminal proceedings can be justified in terms of Article 10 of the Convention. We can find no such special circumstances in the present case.

The same is true of the statements contained in the letter to the General Prosecutor. As the hierarchical superior of P., the General Prosecutor was in our view the appropriate authority to receive complaints about the manner in which P. had carried out his public functions and in particular to investigate, as the applicant had requested him to do, whether the offence of bribery had been committed. Private citizens must remain in principle free to make complaints against public officials to their hierarchical superiors without the risk of facing prosecution for defamation or insult, even where such complaints amount to allegations of a criminal offence and even where such allegations prove on examination to be groundless.

It is true that in the present case the contents of the two letters reached the public domain when they were substantially reproduced in an article written by a third person relating details of the applicant’s case. It is true, too, that the applicant admitted that he had provided the author of the article with the relevant documents. However, this is in our view of no significance in the particular circumstances of the present case. The charge of insulting P. was lodged against the applicant in June 1994, prior to the publication of the article, and related exclusively to the applicant’s letters of 6 December 1993 and 7 March 1994. Moreover, at no stage during the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the district or regional court was any reliance placed on the fact that the allegations had been given wider publicity through the article nor was any reference made to the publication of the allegations in the judgments of either court, the applicant’s conviction and the sentence imposed on him being based solely on the two letters which he had written.

In our view, there was in these circumstances an unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression.