Kansainväliset oikeudelliset tietolähteet
EIT: Suomi rikkoi jälleen sananvapautta
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on tänään antamassaan tuomiossa katsonut, että Alibin päätoimittajan sananvapautta loukattiin jutussa, jossa Alibi oli julkaissut syytetyn ja sittemmin tuomitun poliisin nimen rikosasian käsittelyn yhteydessä. Alibi (Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy) ja Lahtonen oli määrätty mm. maksamaan korvauksia yksityiselämää koskevan tiedon levittämisestä.
EIT totesi asiasta seuraavaa:71. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was convicted on the basis of disclosure of private details made in the impugned article in his capacity as an editor-in-chief and that he, together with the publishing company, was ordered to pay damages and costs.
72. The Court observes at the outset that the impugned article described the details of the incident of 29 July 2003 and it included J.’s name, year of birth, some background information about him and his current place of work. The information in the article was based on the public court documents acquired by the applicant from the District Court after the hearing on 3 February 2004. It also stated that J. had wished to undergo a psychiatric assessment before the court’s decision was made and that he had been ordered to do so by the court.
73. The Court notes that these facts were presented in an objective manner. There is no evidence, or indeed any allegation, of factual misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of the applicant. Nor is there any suggestion that details about J. were obtained by subterfuge or other illicit means (compare Von Hannover v. Germany, cited above, § 68). The facts set out in the articles in issue were not in dispute even before the domestic courts.
74. It is clear that J. was an experienced police officer whose duties involved the exercise of public power. The offences were not committed in office but in J.’s free time. However, he had used the authority of his public function to commit the offences. Criminal charges were preferred against him and he was later convicted as charged but the sentence was waived due to his mental illness. The Court notes that even though the offences committed as such might appear ordinary, it was very rare for such offences to be committed by a police officer.
75. The Court further observes that the impugned article focused on explaining the course of the events as they had been recounted by J. during the pre-trial investigation. This information was public. No details of J.’s private life were mentioned, except his name and the fact that he had wished to undergo a psychiatric assessment before the court’s decision was made and that he had been ordered to do so by the court. Practically the same information was given by J. in the course of an interview given to another magazine.
76. Moreover, it is to be noted that the disclosure of J.’s identity in the reporting had a direct bearing on matters of public interest, namely his conduct and his ability to continue in his post as a police officer. As J. was a police officer, it is difficult to see how his acts, even if committed during his free time, were not a matter of public interest. Therefore, the Court considers that there was a continuing element of public interest involved in the reporting.
77. The Court further notes that the emphasis in the article in question was clearly on J.’s account of the course of events. There was hardly any comment made by the applicant in the article. Even though the article was written and published before J.’s conviction, the reporting and commenting on his court proceedings were objective and irreproachable from the point of view of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
78. Finally, the Court has taken into account the severity of the sanctions imposed on the applicant, including the issue of civil liability which has meanwhile become final (see paragraph 27 above). The applicant was convicted under criminal law and was ordered to pay thirty day-fines, amounting to EUR 1,170. In addition, he was, together with the publishing company, ordered to pay damages to J. in a total amount of EUR 5,000 plus interest and his legal fees amounting to EUR 2,140. Moreover, the applicant alone was ordered to pay J. costs and expenses in the amount of EUR 4,000 and EUR 4,200. The amounts of compensation must be regarded as substantial, given that the maximum compensation afforded to victims of serious violence was approximately FIM 100,000 (EUR 17,000) at the time (see paragraph 40 above).
79. The Court would observe in this connection that recourse to criminal sanctions in order to punish media professionals who publish newspaper reports which are found to invade an individual’s privacy is not, as such, incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention. However, it is only in exceptional circumstances that such sanctions can be justified (see Saaristo and Others v. Finland, no. 184/06, § 69, 12 October 2010; and Yleisradio Oy and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 30881/09, 8 February 2011; as regards defamation and insult, see Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-IV; and Długołęcki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 47, 24 February 2009). No such exceptional circumstances exist in the present case.
80. The Court considers that such severe consequences, viewed against the background of the circumstances resulting in the interference with J.’s right to respect for his private life, were disproportionate having regard to the competing interest of freedom of expression.
81. In conclusion, in the Court’s opinion the reasons relied on by the domestic courts, although relevant, were not sufficient to show that the interference complained of was “necessary in a democratic society”. Moreover, the totality of the sanctions imposed was disproportionate. Having regard to all the foregoing factors, and notwithstanding the margin of appreciation afforded to the State in this area, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake.
82. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Koko tuomio löytyy täältä.
