BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Remuszko v. Poland - 1562/10 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 780 (16 July 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/780.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 780 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 165
July 2013
Remuszko v. Poland - 1562/10
Judgment 16.7.2013 See: [2013] ECHR 689 [Section IV]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of newspaper to publish paid advertisement: no violation
Facts - The applicant, a journalist, published a book relating, in an unfavourable light, the origins of Gazeta Wyborcza, one of the best known Polish daily newspapers, its journalists and the financial dealings of its publisher. He subsequently asked seven daily and weekly newspapers to publish paid advertisements for the book. All refused. The applicant brought proceedings against the newspapers. Eventually, two newspapers were ordered to publish the advertisement concerned. Before the European Court the applicant complained that the domestic courts had endorsed Rzeczpospolita’s (one of the newspapers) refusal to publish paid advertisements for his book, after finding the advertisement was incompatible with the newspaper’s editorial profile and its publication might give rise to suspicion that the editors of Rzeczpospolita were trying to denigrate a competitor, Gazeta Wyborcza, in the eyes of the public.
Law - Article 10: The right invoked by the applicant had to be interpreted and applied with due consideration for the rights of the press. Privately owned newspapers had to be free to exercise editorial discretion in deciding whether to publish articles, comments and letters submitted by private individuals or even by their own staff reporters and journalists. The State’s obligation to ensure freedom of expression did not give private citizens or organisations an unfettered right of access to the media in order to put forward opinions. Those principles applied also to the publication of advertisements. An effective exercise of freedom of the press presupposed the right of newspapers to establish and apply their own policies in respect of the content of advertisements.
In the instant case it had not been argued, let alone shown, that the applicant had had any difficulties in publishing his book or that the authorities had tried in any way to prevent or dissuade him from publishing it or, more generally, that the media market in Poland was not pluralistic. While the issues examined in that book might contribute to a debate about the mission of the press in the Polish society, the paid advertisements proposed by the applicant had been essentially aimed at promoting the distribution and his sales and thus had been primarily designed to further the applicant’s commercial interests. At no point had the applicant been prevented from disseminating information about the book by any means he wished. Indeed, he had created his own Internet website, through which he had informed the general public about the book, its content and its potential significance for the public debate. The domestic law provided an effective procedural framework within which the applicant could seek to have the substantive issues involved in his case determined by judicial authorities. The courts had carefully weighed the applicant’s interests against the legitimate rights of the publishers, such as their own freedom of expression and economic freedom. Their conclusion that, in a pluralistic media market press, publishers should not be obliged to carry advertisements proposed by private parties was compatible with the freedom of expression standards under the Convention. The State had therefore not failed to comply with its obligation to secure the applicant’s freedom of expression.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
(See also Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, 6 May 2003, Information Note 53)
