EIT: Suomi ei rikkonut Suomen Kuvalehden toimittajien sananvapautta

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on tänään antamassaan tuomiossa äänin 5-2 katsonut, että Suomen Kuvalehden päätoimittajan ja toimittajan tuomitseminen törkeästä kunnianloukkauksista laajaa julkisuutta saaneen pesäpalloilijoiden väitetyn raiskaustapauksen johdosta ei rikkonut heidän sananvapauttaan.

What was essentially at stake in this case was whether the domestic authorities had struck the required balance between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime.

The Court noted that the baseball players had been easily identifiable from the article and could thereby suffer damage to their reputation. Notably, they belonged to the local sports club which had been mentioned by name in the article and, as members of the winning team of the 2000 championship, they would be known in their home town, by baseball fans and by a larger public.

Furthermore, the allegations had been of a serious nature and had been presented as statements of fact rather than value judgments. Moreover, the applicants had failed to verify whether their accusations had had a basis in fact, even though they could have clarified the issue by contacting the victim, the players and their team. The article, written before the criminal investigation into the alleged rape, had not only violated the players’ right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty but had also defamed them by stating a fact which had not yet been established.

Indeed, imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned.

In conclusion, the reasons relied on by the domestic courts had been sufficient to show that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. Also bearing in mind that the sanctions imposed, which fell within a State’s discretion to respond to defamation, had been proportionate, the Court considered that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the competing interests involved.

Accordingly, the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 10.

Koko tuomio: Ruokanen and others v. Finland

Palaa otsikoihin