Man cleared of defamation after responding to allegations of contaminated drinking water

The article stated that all of the current water sources contained various bacteria.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, May 2011

Background

As the head of a public water company, Zoran Šabanović felt he had a duty to respond to newspaper allegations that the local water supply was unsafe to drink. The contamination claims were based on a report drawn up at the request of a public official.

Zoran called a press conference. He told the public that the water was safe to drink. Zoran claimed that the public official who requested the study was working to promote the interests of private companies.

The public official started libel proceedings against Zoran, claiming that his statements were untrue. Zoran denied this.

The Montenegrin courts found Zoran guilty of defamation and gave him a three-month suspended prison sentence.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that Zoran’s criminal conviction for making a “robust clarification” on an issue of great public interest, the safety of drinking water, violated his freedom of speech.

Follow-up

In 2011 Montenegro changed its Criminal Code. This included decriminalising defamation, in line with Council of Europe recommendations.

After the European court’s judgment, Zoran asked for his case to be re-opened. He was acquitted at a re-trial in 2012.

Additional information

Themes:

Related examples

Justice for environmental activists in ‘McLibel’ defamation case

McDonald’s brought a successful libel case against two environmental activists, Helen Steel and David Morris, who could not afford a lawyer at the time of the trial. The European court found that the UK’s refusal to grant legal aid to Helen and David caused a breach of their rights. The UK now allows legal aid to be granted, in exceptional circumstances, in defamation cases.

Themes: Right to a fair trial Freedom of speech Human rights and the environment

United Kingdom

Excessive police operation against journalists leads to reforms to protect media sources

Four Belgian journalists were targeted by the police in a huge search and seizure operation aimed at identifying the source of leaked government information. The European court ruled that the operation had been unjustified and disproportionate. The case influenced new legislation to improve protections for journalists and their sources.

Themes: Right to privacy Freedom of speech

Belgium

Nurse compensated after being fired for whistleblowing

Brigitte Heinisch was a geriatric nurse. She claimed that practices in the old people’s home where she worked were putting patients at risk. After she made her allegations public, she was fired. Yet, the German courts found that her dismissal was lawful - so Mrs Heinisch took her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Her case was then re-opened and she won compensation.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Germany

Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights