7.  The first applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Helsinki, Finland. The second applicant (“the applicant company”) is a limited liability company based in Helsinki. 8.  The applicant company publishes a newspaper called Iltalehti which has a circulation of approximately 120,000. On 31 October 1996 it published an article on a criminal trial concerning the drunken and disorderly behaviour, including an assault on a police officer, of Mr A., a lawyer practising in Seinäjoki. The article bore the title “His wife [is] the chairperson of the parliamentary Committee for Education and Culture – Lawyer from Seinäjoki hits policeman in restaurant” (“Vaimo eduskunnan sivistysvaliokunnan puheenjohtaja – Seinäjokelainen asianajaja iski poliisia ravintolassa”).
Follow-up articles were published on 21 November and 10 December 1996 concerning the verdict whereby the defendant was convicted and sentenced to six months’ suspended imprisonment. It was reported that the defendant was the husband of Mrs A., a member of the Finnish parliament and the chairperson of its Committee for Education and Culture. The headline on 21 November read “... Husband of member of parliament hits policeman in restaurant” (“... Kansanedustajan aviomies löi poliisia ravintolassa”). The heading on 10 December 1996 read “... Husband of member of parliament receives harsh sentence for violence in restaurant” (“... Kansanedustajan miehelle kova tuomio ravintolassa riehumisesta”). 9.  The trial of Mr A. had been widely publicised and discussed locally, and the role of Mrs A. – who was in no way involved in the criminal proceedings – had become the subject of, inter alia, political satire in a programme (“Iltalypsy”) broadcast on the main national television channel. 10.  In April 1997 Mrs A., who did not dispute the facts as presented by Iltalehti, instituted proceedings against the applicants and two of the journalists involved on the grounds that the reporting by Iltalehti had been libellous and had invaded her privacy. She requested that the respondents be punished for invasion of privacy and defamation, and claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the articles. Moreover, she relied on section 15 of the Parliament Act then in force (valtiopäiväjärjestys, riksdagsordningen) which stipulated that members of parliament as well as parliamentary officials were to enjoy special protection in the performance of their duties and for the duration of parliamentary sessions. Criminal offences, in the form of words or physical acts, that violated the rights of members of parliament or officials while Parliament was in session, or subsequent physical violence, were to be regarded as being committed in particularly aggravating circumstances. According to Mrs A., this provision was applicable both in relation to the criminal charges and in determining the amount of damages in her case. She argued that the articles had caused her particular suffering as she had been publicly associated with a criminal act that was in no way connected to her person or function as member of parliament. 11.  As editor-in-chief of Iltalehti the first applicant, Mr Karhuvaara, admitted to being superficially aware of the type of material published but denied any detailed prior knowledge of the specific material in question. According to section 32 of the Freedom of the Press Act then in force (painovapauslaki, tryckfrihetslag; 1/1919, replaced by Act no. 460/2003 in 2004), an editor-in-chief was ultimately responsible for any original material published in his newspaper or periodical, regardless of whether he had in fact been aware of its contents. The defendants also argued that they had only mentioned in their articles that Mrs A. was married to Mr A., a fact which was not denied by Mrs A. She had not been otherwise mentioned in the articles. Moreover, the case had already been reported locally and their article contained no new information as such. They also argued that a member of parliament, as a public political figure, must tolerate more from the media than an “average citizen” and that it was particularly disturbing that a member of parliament was trying to limit the defendants’ freedom of expression. 12.  On 27 March 1998 the Vantaa District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) convicted the first applicant and the two other journalists on one count of invasion of privacy under particularly aggravating circumstances within the meaning of section 15 of the Parliament Act. The first applicant was ordered to pay eighty day-fines, amounting to 47,360 Finnish markkas (FIM) (approximately 7,965 euros (EUR)). The two other journalists were both ordered to pay fines amounting to approximately EUR 840. In addition, all the defendants, including both applicants, were ordered to pay damages as requested by the plaintiff (jointly and severally with a co-defendant, FIM 75,000 with interest from 31 October 1996, and jointly and severally with another co-defendant, FIM 100,000 with interest on FIM 50,000 from 21 November 1996 and with interest on FIM 50,000 from 10 December 1996), namely,. a total of FIM 175,000 (approximately EUR 29,400). All the defendants were ordered to reimburse Mrs A. jointly and severally in respect of her legal expenses of FIM 72,109 (EUR 12,128) with interest from 27 April 1998. The defamation charges were dropped. 13.  The District Court found that, as a whole, the banner headlines, the front pages and the articles themselves were published with the purpose of drawing the readers’ attention principally to Mr A.’s marital relationship with Mrs A. and not with the purpose of depicting the events as such. It further found that the highlighted publication of Mrs A.’s name, picture and professional status was in no way necessary in order to report on the criminal trial of Mr A. It acknowledged that the protection of the private life of Mrs A., as a member of parliament, was narrower than that of other persons, but only in so far as the matters in question were connected to her public functions and there was a public interest justifying their publication. The fact that the conviction of the spouse of a politician could affect people’s voting intentions did not in itself render the matter of public interest such as to justify the publication.
The District Court held that the fact that the actions of the plaintiff’s husband and the criminal proceedings against him had been well known in their home district and the fact that the local newspapers had been reporting the matter had no bearing on the defendants’ liability. According to the judgment, it was the nationwide publicity accorded by Iltalehti and the resultant infringement of the plaintiff’s protected private domain that had essentially constituted the criminal offence in question.
It further held that, although the reasons underlying section 15 of the Parliament Act could be regarded as outdated, it was a mandatory provision, leading to conviction for an offence categorised as aggravated.
As to the determination of the amount of compensation for suffering, the District Court noted that the plaintiff herself, especially as she was also a doctor and thus an expert, was best placed to assess her own situation and the damage she had sustained. 14.  On 3 December 1998 the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) dismissed the joint appeal of the defendants and upheld the District Court’s judgment without any observations on the merits of the case, save for a minor correction of the lower court’s statement as to the alleged unlawful benefit accruing to the publishers. The Court of Appeal added that regardless of this correction the damages awarded to the plaintiff were not to be considered excessive. 15.  On 25 May 1999 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the defendants leave to appeal.