Avenue de l'Europe
Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland 
| 1992
Free access to opinions and information – particularly uncomfortable opinions and information that is difficult to obtain, which are usually more likely to open people’s eyes to new perspectives – that is also the cornerstone of democracy.
Thorgeir Thorgeirson, in his speech before the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 March 1990.
Reprinted in Pressan, February 1994 - © Photo: Icelandic Film Centre
In the early 1980s there a were series of allegations of police brutality in Iceland, leading to the prosecution of members of the Reykjavik police.
Thorgeir Thorgeirson was a writer and filmmaker. In 1983 he published two articles in the newspaper Morgunbladid, in which he claimed that there was a serious problem with police brutality in Reykjavik. He was prosecuted and convicted for defaming the Reykjavik police and fined 10,000 Icelandic crowns.
The European court ruled that the articles had addressed a matter of serious public concern. The allegations of police brutality had circulated widely in society, and in one case had resulted in the conviction of a police officer. Prosecuting and convicting Thorgeir Thorgeirson for writing about them could discourage public debate about serious issues affecting society.
Therefore, the actions of the authorities had been disproportionate and had violated Thorgeir's right to free speech.
In 1995 the Icelandic Parliament abolished the law under which Thorgeir Thorgeirson had been prosecuted. A new version made it more difficult to bring defamation proceedings for criticising civil servants.
Before a presidential election, the newspaper The Day published articles criticising two of the candidates. The politicians sued the owners of the newspaper for damages and won. The European court found that the owners had been punished merely for publishing opinions, violating their right to free speech. The case influenced reforms to protect freedom of expression in Ukraine.
Retired journalist Veseljko Koprivica was ordered to pay huge damages after losing a defamation case. The European court ruled that the damages awarded were so excessive that they violated his right to free speech. A ruling by the Supreme Court of Montenegro specified that damages for defamation should not be high enough to discourage journalists from playing their key role in society.
The magazine Mladina published an article criticising a politician for homophobic remarks in a parliamentary debate. The politician sued the magazine because he had been offended by its criticism. The Slovenian courts ruled against the magazine, ordering it to pay damages. The European court ruled this had violated the magazine’s rights – leading to reforms to protect free speech.
Iceland
Ukraine
Montenegro
Slovenia