Justice for magazine editor ordered to pay huge damages – and new rules to protect free speech

Koprivica v. Montenegro  | 2011

Justice for magazine editor ordered to pay huge damages – and new rules to protect free speech

The judgment of the European Court for me is a moral satisfaction, but also an encouragement for free journalists.

Veseljko Koprivica, quoted by


Veseljko Koprivica used to be the editor-in-chief of Liberal, a weekly magazine. In 1994 the magazine published an article written by a special correspondent, which made allegations against certain people.  

Mr Koprivica had relied on the reporting of his special correspondent. However, it turned out that the allegations were mistaken. One of the people involved sued Mr Koprivica for defamation. The Montenegrin courts found against Mr Koprivica and ordered him and the founder of Liberal to pay compensation roughly 25 times greater than Mr Koprivica’s pension.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The court ruled that, in order to protect freedom of expression, the amount of damages awarded in defamation cases must be proportionate to the injury suffered.

Though Mr Koprivica’s conviction may have been justified, the disproportionate damages awarded had violated his right to free speech.

In particular, the court finds that the damages and costs awarded were very substantial when compared to the applicant’s income at the time, being roughly twenty-five times greater than the applicant’s pension

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, November 2011 - © Photo Veseljko Koprivica


After these events, the Supreme Court of Montenegro adopted a binding opinion in 2011 on European standards concerning freedom of expression. This specified that damages awarded in defamation proceedings against journalists  should be in line with the European court’s case law, and should not be high enough to discourage journalists from doing their work in support of democracy. This legal opinion is binding for all courts in Montenegro.

The defamation judgment against Mr Koprivica was overturned. The case against him was reopened and the claim was ultimately withdrawn.

Related examples

Legal attack on a newspaper highlights the need for free speech reforms

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 Strasbourg 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.

Read more

Free speech reforms after writer prosecuted for reporting allegations of police brutality

In the early 1980s Thorgeir Thorgeirson wrote articles claiming that there was a problem with police brutality in Reykjavik. His reporting was based on the prosecution of a police officer and various public allegations. Nevertheless, he was convicted for defaming the Reykjavik police. The European court ruled that this had violated his right to freedom of expression, leading to free speech...

Read more

Magazine made to pay damages for criticising politician’s homophobic behaviour

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.

Read more

Justice for the victims of Soviet oppression

Klaus and Yuri Kiladze were eleven and nine years old when their father was killed by the Soviet authorities. Their mother was then sent to a gulag, their family apartment was seized and they were taken into abusive State custody. Decades later, a Georgian law was passed establishing a right to compensation for victims of Soviet oppression. Yet the national courts still denied them justice.

Read more

Greater protections for free speech after journalist sued for reporting on alleged political corruption

In July 2000 Ilnar Gorelishvili wrote an article about a politician who owned various expensive properties. She questioned how he had bought these whilst working in public service on a moderate salary. The politician sued her for defamation and won. The European court ruled that Georgian law had not properly protected Ms Gorelishvili’s right to give her opinion.

Read more

Reforms to protect free speech after journalists sued

Matti Paloaro and Pentti Eerikäinen were journalists. They reported on the prosecution of a businesswoman, who had abused public funds and was later sentenced to prison. The businesswoman sued the journalists, claiming they had invaded her privacy by publicising her prosecution. The businesswoman won in the Finnish courts – but the Strasbourg court ruled in favour of the journalists.

Read more

Journalist convicted for asking questions wins free speech case at European court

In a report on alleged corruption in Portuguese football, José Manuel Colaço Mestre asked questions to an interviewee about the dual role played by Mr Pinto de Costa, who was then both Chairman of FC Porto and President of the Portuguese Football League. Because of these questions, Mr Colaço Mestre and his employer were both found guilty of criminal defamation in the Portuguese courts.

Read more

Senator put in prison for criticising the government

Senator Miguel Castells wrote an article claiming that the government was failing to investigate a series of murders. He was convicted of insulting the government and sentenced to a year in prison. The European court ruled that his right to free speech had been violated. The Spanish Constitutional Court then developed its case law to provide greater protection to free speech in Spain.

Read more

Newspaper’s free speech victory leads to reforms

In 1988 the local newspaper Bladet Tromsø published claims by a government inspector alleging misconduct by certain seal hunters. The Norwegian courts found the newspaper liable for defamation, saying that it had relied too heavily on government reports. The Strasbourg court ruled that this violated the paper’s right to free speech – leading to reforms to protect freedom of expression.

Read more