Journaliste mocht met waardenoordelen publiceren over seksschandalen
EHRM 21 oktober 2014, IEF 14376 (Hlynsdottir tegen IJsland 2)
Mediarecht. Vrijheid van meningsuiting. Onrechtmatige uiting. De uitlating in de TV-uitzending, inhoudende dat eiser ongeschikt zou zijn om met kinderen te werken, is niet onrechtmatig. De nationale rechter heeft op onjuiste gronden aangenomen dat de journalist in strijd heeft gehandeld met hetgeen van een verantwoordelijk beroepsuitoefenaar mag worden verwacht.
(a) General principles
57. The essential function the press fulfils in a democratic society is a central factor for the Court’s determination in the present case. The duty of the press is to impart information and ideas, including on all matters of public interest, in accordance with its obligations and responsibilities. However, it must not overstep certain bounds, first and foremost as regards the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information. The public also has a right to receive such information and ideas. In addition, the Court is mindful of the fact that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. In cases such as the present one the national margin of appreciation is further circumscribed by the interest of democratic society in enabling the press to exercise its vital role of ‘public watchdog’ in imparting information of serious public concern (see Von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, 7 February 2012, § 102, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 59 and 62, ECHR 1999 III; Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway, no. 510/04, § 82, 1 March 2007, with further references; and Björk Eiðsdóttir, cited above, § 65).”
(b) Application of those principles to the present case
58. The Court observes from the outset that in its judgment of 18 February 2010 the Supreme Court rejected Mrs X’s libel action in respect of a series of statements contained in the applicant’s article to the effect that Mrs X had taken part in sexual activities along with Mr Y and a number of female patients at Byrgið. On the other hand, the Supreme Court found the applicant liable for defamation in respect of the latter part of the sentence under item i., which she had attributed to Ms A, “... not appropriate that the one who hunts for him works in a primary school.”
59. The Supreme Court was of the view that the aforementioned words “which ha[d] by no means been proven to be true, indicated that [Mrs X] was guilty of criminal conduct” and that they “contained a coarse insinuation against [her] about a criminal act.” Furthermore, “[t]he statement [had] appeared in a conspicuous manner in a widely-read newspaper and was likely to affect the dignity and professional reputation of [Mrs X].” Moreover, it had not been proven that the statement had been correctly quoted from Ms A and therefore the Supreme Court found the applicant, as the author of the article, liable for its content (Article 235 of the Penal Code and section 15 (1) of the Printing Act) and declared the statement null and void (Article 241 of the Penal Code).
60. The accusations against Mr Y had surfaced when a national television channel broadcast in a news programme a story in which he was accused of, among other things, the sexual offences which were the subject matter of the impugned newspaper article. Subsequently, a high profile criminal investigation was opened against Mr Y and Mrs X, who both had the formal status of suspects, which led to Mr Y being indicted but not Mrs X. It was in this context that the applicant’s news coverage was published and there can be no doubt that, seen as a whole, it related to an issue of serious public concern in Iceland.
61. The most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when, as in the present case, the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern (see Björk Eiðsdóttir, § 69; Jersild, cited above, § 35; Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 52; and Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom, cited above, § 88; compare MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no. 39401/04, §§ 150 and 155, 18 January 2011; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2), cited above, §§ 106 07, 7 February 2012; and Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 87-88).
62. The protection of the right of journalists to impart information on issues of general interest requires that they should act in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide “reliable and precise” information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see, for example, Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 27 March 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II; Fressoz and Roire, cited above, § 54; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 65; McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 73, ECHR 2002-III; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 78). Under the terms of paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, freedom of expression carries with it “duties and responsibilities” that also apply to the media, even with respect to matters of serious public concern. Those “duties and responsibilities” are significant when there is a question of attacking the reputation of a named individual and infringing the “rights of others”. Thus, special grounds are required before the media can be dispensed from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that are defamatory of private individuals. Whether such grounds exist depends in particular on the nature and degree of the defamation in question and the extent to which the media can reasonably regard their sources as reliable with respect to the allegations (see, among other authorities, Björk Eiðsdóttir, § 70; McVicar, § 84; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, § 66; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, § 78, all cited above).
63. The Court finds that there are no such special grounds in the present case. According to the domestic courts’ assessment of the evidence, it had not been proven that the impugned statement stemmed from Ms A. The Court does not question that conclusion as the Supreme Court’s findings on this issue cannot be considered manifestly unreasonable.
64. The Court will thus go on to consider the impugned article as a whole and have particular regard to the words used in the disputed part of the article and the context in which it was published, as well as the manner in which it was prepared (see Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999 IV). It must examine whether relevant and sufficient grounds were adduced by the national authorities as a basis for finding that the applicant did not act in good faith and in compliance with an ordinary journalistic obligation to verify factual allegations. That obligation required that the factual basis on which she relied be sufficiently accurate and reliable and be considered proportionate to the nature and degree of the allegation, given that the more serious the allegation, the more solid the factual basis has to be (see Björk Eiðsdóttir, § 71; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, § 78, both cited above,).
65. In this regard the Court, firstly, observes that the above-mentioned meaning attached to the defamatory sentence, namely that it contained a coarse insinuation about a criminal act, was not derived explicitly from the sentence itself but was the result of an interpretation by the domestic courts. However, the domestic courts did not explain in their judgments how the word “hunt”, used in the statement: “the one who hunts for him” (emphasis added), would be perceived by the ordinary reader as an innuendo about a criminal act. Indeed, the judgments contained no reference to any legal provision under which the act could be objectively subsumed, nor did they offer any clarification or description of the alleged criminal offence. This was all the more necessary considering that the Supreme Court had already rejected Mrs X’s libel action in respect of a series of statements contained in the applicant’s article referring to the active participation of Mrs X in sexual activities with a number of female patients at Byrgið, including seeking to have sexual encounters with Ms A in private (see item f., referred to in paragraph 10), as well as the allegation that Mrs X was fully aware of Mr Y’s abuse of the patients and that she sometimes participated in the sexual games (see item l., referred to in paragraph 10). The Court is therefore not convinced that the reasons relied on by the domestic courts were relevant to the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of Mrs X (see Erla Hlynsdόttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 62, 10 July 2012, and Bergens Tidende and Others, cited above, § 56).
66. Secondly, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, a fundamental distinction should be made between statements that are to be categorized as factual assertions and value judgments. In its contextual examination of the disputed statement as a whole, the Court must carry out its own evaluation of the impugned statement (see, amongst other authorities, Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, no. 5266/03, §§ 25-26, 22 February 2007). Furthermore, the Court has acknowledged (see, for example, Vides Aizsardzības Klubs v. Latvia, no. 57829/00, § 43, 27 May 2004; and Katamadze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 69857/01, 2 February 2001) that the distinction between value-judgments and statements of fact may be blurred, and that the issue may need to be resolved by examining the degree of factual proof.
67. On this basis, the Court observes that the Supreme Court found that the first part of the impugned statement in item i: (“... this person is crazy. I cannot see that she has anything to offer as a teaching assistant or in any kind of relief work. I do not know what she is doing in this school ...”), constituted a value judgment that did not amount to unlawful defamation under the relevant national provisions. This conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court’s own finding that the similar statement in item n. (see paragraph 10), to the effect that Mr B found it “odd that a woman in this position [was] working with children” constituted a value judgment. On the other hand, the Supreme Court considered that the latter part (“... not appropriate that the one who hunts for him works in a primary school”) was “a different matter”, but without specifying in which way (see paragraph 18 above).
68. In light of the above, the Court is of the view that the affirmation that it was “not appropriate” that Mrs X “work[ed] in a primary school” ought to have been regarded as a value judgment. On the other hand, the portrayal of Mrs X as being the “one who hunts for” Mr Y, which was the stated basis for the said value judgment, included a factual element, namely that Mrs X had taken part in sexual activities with Mr Y and female patients at the Byrgið rehabilitation center. However, that element was considered an established fact by the Supreme Court, which also noted Mr Y’s conviction for his conduct (see paragraph 18 above). The words “hunts for him”, when assessed in light of the article as a whole, and in particular the established facts of Mrs X active participation in sexual activities, among other things her seeking to have sexual encounters with Ms A in private and her active participation in sexual games (see paragraph 65 above), may be more readily understood as a value based characterization of established factual events rather than a pure factual assertion (see, mutatis mutandis, Nilsen and Johnsen, cited above, § 50).(...)
74. The defamation proceedings brought by Mrs X against the applicant, Ms A and Mr B ended in an order declaring the statement null and void and requiring the applicant to pay Mrs X ISK 300,000 (approximately EUR 1,650) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and ISK 100,000 for the costs of publishing the judgment, plus interest.
75. In light of the above, the Court finds, in the concrete circumstances of the present case, that the Supreme Court did not base its judgment on relevant and sufficient grounds demonstrating convincingly that the applicant acted in bad faith or otherwise inconsistently with the diligence expected of a responsible journalist reporting on a matter of public interest. Moreover, and importantly, the Court reiterates that even assuming that the reasons adduced by the Supreme Court were relevant for the purposes of the interference in question, it has not been shown that the national court balanced the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression as a journalist and Mrs X’s rights to her reputation, in accordance with the established principles in the Court’s case-law, and thus examined thoroughly whether the measure imposed corresponded to a pressing social need. Consequently, the judgment of the Supreme Court was not based on sufficient grounds so as to constitute a proportionate measure under paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for instance, Wizerkaniuk v. Poland, no. 18990/05, § 87, 5 July 2011; and Erla Hlynsdόttir, cited above, § 72).
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Op andere blogs:
European Courts
MediaReport
