The criminal conviction for defamation through the press infringes the limits of freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Traustason and others v. Iceland 4-5-2017 (no. 44081/13)
SUMMARY
Freedom of expression. Freedom of press. Judgment. Iceland. A criminal conviction for defamation due to a newspaper article about financial irregularities violates the right to freedom of expression and is not necessary in a democratic society. The ECtHR condemns Iceland.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
At the relevant time, two of the applicants were on the editorial board of DV, and the third applicant was a journalist for the paper. The three applicants complained that their rights to freedom of expression had been violated by judgments making them liable for defamation.
In March 2011 DV published a story (written by the third applicant) about the management of a leading Icelandic packaging company, which had been declared bankrupt in 2010. The article reported the findings of an accountancy firm’s investigation into the company, which included suggestions of financial mismanagement by board members. Headlines on the front page of the newspaper and above the article stated that the chairman of the board, A., was being investigated by the police. A. lodged defamation proceedings against the applicants and DV. In March 2012 the District Court held that, though it was true that the police had been “examining” a complaint concerning A., they had not taken the formal decision to “investigate”. The suggestion that A. was being investigated by police was therefore wrong, and also defamatory. The statements were declared null and void, and the applicants were ordered to pay 200,000 Icelandic Krónur (approximately 1,600 euros) in damages, plus interest and costs. The applicants appealed, but the Supreme Court upheld the judgment made at first instance.
The applicants complained that the judgments had entailed an interference with their right to freedom of expression that had not been necessary in a democratic society and which had violated their rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction: The applicants submitted their claims for just satisfaction outside the assigned time-limit. The Court considered that there was no call to award them any sum on that account.
