30 Jul Violation of the right to freedom of expression in a case relating to an election campaign

In the case of Brzeziński v. Poland (application no. 47542/07, 25/07/2019) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously held, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned an allegation that the applicant’s freedom of expression had been breached, on account of comments made by him in an election campaign brochure. 

The applicant, Mr Zenon Brzeziński, is a Polish national. In October 2006, during a political campaign for election to municipal and district councils and regional assemblies, Mr Brzeziński, who was standing for the post of municipal councillor, and a certain A.B. issued a brochure, in which they called on the public to vote for the members of their electoral group and criticised the way in which the municipality was run. These criticisms mainly concerned the mayor and the members of the municipal council. The mayor and a local councillor who were targeted in the brochure sued Mr Brzeziński and A.B., applying for an injunction to prevent dissemination of the brochure and obliging its authors to rectify the incorrect information published and offer a public apology. The court ordered applicant to apologise and to correct the inexact information contained therein. It also ordered him to pay 5,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) to a charitable organisation and PLN 360 to the complainants for costs. The court noted that Mr Brzeziński had implied that fraud had been committed in the allocation of public grants, although, in the court’s finding, these facts had not been established

The Court held that there was no doubt that the contested statements had been made in the context of a debate on issues which were important for the local community. However, the Court could not endorse the domestic courts’ finding that Mr Brzeziński was required in the present case to prove the truth of his statements. The Court held that the language used in the brochure had remained within the limits of admissible exaggeration or provocation, having regard to the ordinary tone and register of the political debate at local level.

Furthermore, in addition to the ban on continuing to publish the brochure, the applicant had been ordered to apologise and to rectify the comments that were held to be incorrect, by having a statement published on the front page of two local newspapers. He had also been ordered to pay a sum to a charitable organisation. In consequence, the Court considered that the applicant had been subjected to a penalty that could have an inhibiting effect, although he had been taking part in a political debate.

The Court concluded that the decisions issued against the applicant amounted to a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression and had not been necessary in a democratic society. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 10.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights