Ruimte voor satire en ironie in opiniestuk volgens het EHRM

EHRM 5 juli 2016, IEF 16300; IEFbe 1950; ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0705JUD000179907 (Ziembiński v. Poland) Mediarecht. Een Poolse opiniemaker publiceert een artikel waarin hij een plan van een paar ambtenaren en de burgemeester bekritiseert. In het artikel noemt hij de heren onder meer “numbskull”, “dim-witted official”, “poser” en “dumb bosses”. De ambtenaren en de burgemeester doen aangifte, die leidt tot een veroordeling wegens belediging. De opiniemaker stapt naar het EHRM. Het EHRM oordeelt dat deze veroordeling in strijd is met artikel 10 EVRM, omdat de grenzen van acceptabele kritiek op de burgemeester ruimer liggen en is het verder niet eens met de Poolse rechter, aangezien in zijn oordeel niet was meegewogen dat het artikel van de opiniemaker een satirisch en ironisch karakter heeft.

42. The Court notes that M.D. was the mayor of the district, and therefore an elected local politician and official. It is well established in the Court’s case-law that the limits of acceptable criticism are wider with regard to politicians than with regard to a private individual (see Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 42, Series A no. 103; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2), 1 July 1997, § 29, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑IV; Mamère v. France, no. 12697/03, § 27, ECHR 2006‑XIII; and Kwiecień, cited above, § 47). The two other people to whom the applicant’s criticism was addressed – according to the trial court – were local civil servants G.D. and K.H., the head of the district’s marketing department and an official in that department respectively. It is true that civil servants acting in an official capacity are, like politicians, subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals. However, it cannot be said that civil servants knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed to the extent politicians do (see Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 33, ECHR 1999‑I, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 80, ECHR 2004‑XI).

43. With regard to the classification of the statements in issue, the Court notes that the domestic courts did not take a clear position in this respect. They held that the applicant had exceeded the limits of fair criticism and resorted to expressions which were disrespectful and offensive. These expressions were further held to be harmful to the claimants’ perception of their dignity.

44. The Court notes that the assessment of the necessity of the interference in the present case cannot be detached from the context and the apparent goal of the applicant’s criticism. It further considers that the satirical nature of the text and the irony underlying it should be taken into account when analysing the applicant’s article (see Sokołowski v. Poland, no. 75955/01, § 46 in fine, 29 March 2005). The use of sarcasm and irony is perfectly compatible with the exercise of a journalist’s freedom of expression (see Smolorz v. Poland, no. 17446/07, § 41, 16 October 2012). However, it appears that the domestic courts did not take sufficient account of these features, even though they noted that the applicant had intended to mock the officials and had earlier published an ironic article on the same subject. In this context, the Court reiterates that, while any individual who takes part in a public debate of general concern – like the applicant in the instant case – must not overstep certain limits, particularly with regard to respect for the reputation and rights of others, a degree of exaggeration or even provocation is permitted; in other words, a degree of immoderation is allowed (see Mamère, cited above, § 25; Dąbrowski v. Poland, no. 18235/02, § 35, 19 December 2006; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 24, 19 July 2011; Novaya Gazeta and Borodyanskiy v. Russia, no. 14087/08, § 29, 28 March 2013; and Marian Maciejewski v. Poland, no. 34447/05, § 79, 13 January 2015).

Op andere blogs: www.mediareport.nl