Strasbourg: Media is free

A 7 member judge panel unanimously overruled a decision against Bratislava-based multimedia publishing company, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, citing a failure to examine whether the stories were written in good faith and in accordance with journalistic ethics.

The court in Strasbourg concluded that the national court’s decision violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Vice Chairman of the International Press Institute, Pavol Múdry, a member of the board of IPI’s Slovakian Committee, said the committee “welcomes the Strasbourg court’s decision as a clear expression of guidance for Slovak courts and a great step forward for the stabilization of press freedom in the country.”

Former Police Vice President Jozef Petras sued the Slovakian media for libel over a series of reports in the print and online editions describing a 1999 incident at a restaurant involving Petras and Ján Slota, who at the time was a parliamentary deputy, leader of the Slovak National Party leader and mayor of Žilina.

Tipped off by an anonymous telephone call, a reporter came to the restaurant and observed the two men for about 10 minutes before they left, while they were conducting an indecent behavior.

Petras, who was cleared of any impropriety by police investigators and who later left the police force of his own initiative, confirmed that he was at the restaurant with Slota. But he denied the other accounts, and both he and Slota filed suit.

NOVY CAS’s publisher pointed in its defense to Article 10, which sets forth the right to freedom of expression, including the “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The article also provides that the exercise of these freedoms carries “duties and responsibilities” and may be subject to certain restrictions.

A Slovakian court presiding over Petras’ suit found in his favor, ruled that the officer’s interest in having his private life respected prevailed over the public’s interest in the incident.

The court then granted Petras’ request for a correction and an apology, and compensation of 23,000 euros, although that amount was later halved on appeal.

However, the judges in Strasbourg held that although the Slovakian courts made reference to journalists’ good faith and the presence of a public interest in the matter, they had failed to take evidence or to make an analysis or draw specific conclusions on those points.

IPI Director Alison Bethel McKenzie joined Múdry in applauding Tuesday’s decision:

“We are happy the Strasbourg court has provided guidance not only to Slovakian courts on evaluating and upholding the rights to freedom of expression and information, but to courts in all other countries that are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights,” she said. “A robust, free media is vital to democracy, and journalists should not be punished for reporting ethically and in good faith on matters involving public officials.”

The Strasbourg court’s decision is scheduled to become final in three months unless one of the parties requests, and a five-judge panel grants, a referral to the Grand Chamber of the Court.

The case is Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia.

Top Channel