The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently issued a judgement in the case of Mladina v. Slovenia. The case develops the court’s position on “public statements susceptible to criticism”, saying the authors of such statements should show greater resilience when offensive statements are in turn addressed to them.
The applicant was the publisher of a weekly Slovenian magazine, Mladina. A draft law on same sex marriage was debated before the national Parliament in Slovenia. The magazine published an article following the debate which criticised the views of one Member of Parliament Mr. S.P. who was quoted as saying that “none of us would want to have a son or daughter who would opt for this kind of marriage. If our homeless people could follow the breadcrumb trail to Finland or even, further, let these ladies and gentlemen also go there to marry”. The article challenged the homophobic statements of Mr S.P as “the typical attitude of a cerebral bankrupt”. Mr. S.P took offence and successfully sued for defamation in the domestic Slovenian courts and was awarded damages.
The ECtHR overturned the domestic decisions, and noted (as it had already done in earlier caes) that politicians be more tolerant about statements directed against them. The court said that in this case, the article’s authors were expressing strong disagreement or contempt for Mr. S.P’s views, rather than making a factual assessment of his intellectual abilities. The ECtHR said that the domestic courts had not given enough consideration to the article’s context and style, and this meant that the statement did not amount to a gratuitous personal attack on Mr S.P. The Court found that the domestic Slovenian courts did not convincingly establish any pressing social need to put the protection of Mr. S.P.’s reputation above the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression and the general interest in promoting freedom of expression where issues of public interest are concerned.
Click here to read a more detailed analysis of the Court’s reasoning and previous case law relevant to the decision on the Strasbourg Observers Blog.