Back

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

Mladina D.D. Ljubljana v. Slovenia  | 2014

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

Victory for freedom of expression

Headline of Mladina, following the European court’s judgment, April 2014

Background

In June 2005 the magazine Mladina published an article harshly criticising a politician for his contribution to a debate in parliament.

The debate had been about the introduction of civil partnerships for same-sex couples. The politician had said that homosexuals were generally undesirable – whether as children, same-sex couples or parents.

The Mladina article described the politician as a “cerebral bankrupt”.

The politician sued the magazine for using these words, saying that they had offended him. The Slovenian courts found in favour of the politician, ordering the magazine to pay him 2,921 euros in damages. The magazine also had to publish part of the judgment.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court said that limits on speech were wider when criticising a politician than a private person – especially when the politician had made controversial public remarks. The article had not been a gratuitous personal attack on the parliamentarian. It had been a response to his own public remarks, where he had sought to ridicule homosexuals. In the circumstances, the rulings of the Slovenian courts had been disproportionate, violating the magazine’s right to free speech.

We hope that today's decision of the European Court of Human Rights will affect the case law in the direction of opening the field of expression of critical opinions and positions.

Matija Stepišnik, President of the Slovene Journalists Association, quoted by Mladina

Follow-up

To help protect free speech in Slovenia, the Constitutional Court changed its approach for deciding on similar cases by incorporating the case-law of the European court into its own case law. 

The magazine Mladina was awarded 2,921 euros in compensation, as well as legal costs.


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

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

Retired journalist Veseljko Koprivica was ordered to pay huge damages after losing a defamation case. The Strasbourg 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.

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

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

Fairer television coverage for small political parties

Small political parties received virtually no television news coverage, and were banned from TV advertising. The Strasbourg court ruled that this left the Pensioner’s Party no way of transmitting its message on TV, violating its right to freedom speech. Reforms were made to political broadcasting rules, requiring the national broadcaster to include smaller parties in its TV coverage.

Read more

Reforms made after pensioner given unreasonable punishments

Sofija Tešić received a monthly pension equivalent to 170 euros. After she lost a defamation case, every month two-thirds of her pension was taken to pay off her debt – leaving her without money to pay for medication. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had been disproportionate. The Serbian courts changed their case law to limit defamation awards, and enforcement proceedings were also...

Read more