CASE OF MEDŽLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BRČKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Egidijus Kūris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Khanlar Hajiyev;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
10. On an unknown date in May 2003 the applicants wrote a letter to the highest authorities of the BD, namely the International Supervisor for BD, the President of the Assembly of BD and the Governor of BD, while the procedure for the appointment of a director of the BD’s multi-ethnic public radio station was still pending. In the letter, they voiced their concerns regarding the procedure for the appointment of a director of the BD’s multi-ethnic public radio station. They criticised the authorities for having disregarded the principle of proportional representation of ethnic communities in the public service of BD set out in the Statute of BD. In this connection they stated: “...We acknowledge and appreciate your support and the effort you put into creating a multi-ethnic radio ... Unfortunately, it appears that there was a major oversight at the very beginning of this important venture. The panel for the selection of the director [of the radio] was created in contravention of the Statute of Brčko District. It is composed of three Serb members, one Croat and one Bosniac. Thus, yet again, the (BD) Statute, which requires proportional representation of the three constituent peoples in public institutions, was disregarded. Parliament established several cases of non-compliance with this principle regarding employment of staff in the public sector, including the BD radio, to the disadvantage of Bosniacs and Croats, and requested that the Governor correct this imbalance. Unfortunately, nothing has been done to correct this. That this is true is confirmed by the unofficial information that Ms M.S. was proposed for the position of the radio’s director by the Serb members of the (selection) panel, who are in the majority, although the former director was Bosniac. This proposal is unacceptable, all the more so because it concerns a person who lacks the professional and moral qualities for such a position.” 11. The letter continued as follows: “According to our information (našim informacijama), the lady in question (1) stated in an interview published in ‘NIN’, commenting on the destruction of mosques in Brčko, that Muslims were not a people (Muslimani nisu narod), that they did not possess culture and that, accordingly, destroying mosques could not be seen as destruction of cultural monuments, (2) as an employee of the BD radio demonstratively tore to pieces on the radio’s premises (demonstrativno kidala) the calendar showing the schedule of religious services during the month of Ramadan, (3) on the radio’s premises covered the coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the coat of arms of the Republika Srpska, (4) as an editor of the cultural programme on the BD radio banned the broadcasting of sevdalinka arguing that that type of song had no cultural or musical value. We firmly believe that the above-described acts absolutely disqualify Ms M.S. as a candidate for the position of director of the multi-ethnic Radio and Television of Brčko District and that a Bosniac should be appointed to that [radio’s director] position, which would be in compliance with the Statute of [BD] and the need to rectify the ethnic imbalance regarding employment in the public sector. We hope that you will react appropriately to our letter ... In the absence of any action on your part, we will be forced to address the public (obratiti se javnosti) and [to contact] international and other competent representatives.” 12. Soon afterwards, still in May 2003, the letter was published in three different daily newspapers. 13. On 29 May 2003 M.S. brought civil defamation proceedings claiming that in the above letter the applicants had made defamatory statements which had damaged her reputation and discredited her as a person and a professional journalist. 14. At the trial the first-instance court admitted a considerable volume of evidence, including oral statements from seven witnesses (apparently all employees of the BD public radio) regarding the veracity of the four allegations contained in the applicants’ letter; it also admitted oral statements from the plaintiff and from O.H. and S.C., the members and statutory representatives of two of the applicants. 15. As described in the judgment of 29 September 2004 (see paragraph 18 below), M.S. stated that she had learned of the letter shortly after it had been sent by the applicants, but that she did not know who had given it to the media. She confirmed that she had removed from the wall in the premises of the radio station the calendar showing the schedule of religious services during the month of Ramadan, but explained that the wall had been used only for work-related announcements. She denied that she had torn up the calendar. As to the coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina, she stated that an invitation card with the coat of arms of Republika Srpska had been placed in a corner of the coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that the latter had not been covered. Lastly, she denied that she had banned the broadcasting of sevdalinka. She argued that all those matters had been taken out of context, that her career as a journalist had been thwarted and that she had been concerned about her professional future. 16. O.H. confirmed that he had participated in the preparation of the letter and stated that he had found out about the information contained therein from employees of the radio station who had asked him for help. There had been no intention to publish the letter. For that reason, it had been sent to the authorities personally. He did not know how the letter had reached the media. 17. S.C. stated that most of the information had been brought to his attention by O.H. The letter had been sent to the authorities personally. Their intention had not been to publish the letter in the media. That was why they had indicated in the letter that it concerned allegations and not established facts. Their aim had been to draw the attention of the authorities to errors of M.S., who had been a serious candidate for the post of director of the BD radio. 18. By a judgment dated 29 September 2004, the BD Court of First Instance dismissed M.S.’s action and ordered her to publish the judgment at her expense and to reimburse the trial costs of the applicants. It found that the applicants could not be held responsible because there had been no evidence that they had published the letter in the media. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows: “It is clear that the defendants’ letter was addressed personally (upućeno na ruke) to the Governor, to the President of the Assembly and to the Supervisor for Brčko District ... and it was not sent to the media ... The court established that the aim of the letter was to bring the attention of the authorities to (these) issues and to enable them to draw certain conclusions on verification of that information, and not to publish unverified information. Having examined the articles published in the media, the court concludes that none of them was published by [the applicants].” 19. On appeal by M.S., the BD Court of Appeal quashed that judgment on 16 May 2005 and decided to hold a new hearing. 20. At the hearing before the Court of Appeal M.S. reiterated that the four statements specified above (see paragraph 11 above) had contained untrue and defamatory allegations whose aim had been to portray her as a nationalist and accordingly disqualify her for the post for which she had applied. Not only had she not been appointed to the post, but the letter had had other long-term negative consequences for her. 21. The applicants argued that they had lacked capacity to be sued because they had not sent the letter to the media and, accordingly, had not expressed or disseminated in public any defamatory statements in respect of the appellant. The letter had been sent to the authorities. By a judgment of 11 July 2007 the BD Court of Appeal dismissed that argument and stated that “... a person’s reputation can be damaged if someone expresses or disseminates to other people untrue facts or allegations about the past, knowledge, skills or anything else (and he or she knew or ought to have known that those facts or allegations were untrue). For these reasons, the court dismisses the respondents’ arguments that one can be held responsible for defamation only if there was a public announcement or dissemination or publication of (such) statements in the media.” 22. The applicants further argued that M.S. had been a public servant and that by having taken part in the competition for the position of radio director she had become a public figure. Relying on section 6(5) of the Defamation Act (see paragraph 41 below), the court held as follows: “... even if the aggrieved party is a public servant or a candidate for a post in a public body and he or she is generally perceived as having an important influence on public issues of political interest ... (a defendant) is to be held liable for defamation if he knew that a statement was false or negligently disregarded its inaccuracy.” 23. Referring to the first part of the letter (see paragraph 10 above), the BD Court of Appeal did not go beyond noting that it contained value judgments for which no responsibility could be attributed to the applicants under the Defamation Act. It further quoted the four statements contained in the letter (see paragraph 11 above) and held that these “concerned statements of fact which the defendants were required to prove.” In this connection it re-examined O.H., S.C. and the witnesses who had already given oral evidence before the first-instance court (see paragraph 14 above). 24. The Court of Appeal also noted that R.S. and O.S., both employees of the BD public radio, had visited one of the applicants in order to discuss M.S.’s behaviour in the workplace. On that occasion R.S. had told O.H. that during the month of Ramadan M.S. had detached from the wall in the radio’s premises the calendar showing the schedule of religious services. The court noted that the wall had been used for work-related announcements. It also indicated that, at the relevant time, another text, which had not been work-related, had been posted on the wall. O.S. (sound manager in the radio) had told O.H. that on one occasion M.S. had asked him to explain why sevdalinka had been broadcasted during the time reserved in the programme for another type of music. He confirmed that she had removed the Ramadan religious calendar from the wall. 25. At a meeting held shortly afterwards, O.H. shared the information received from R.S. and O.S. with the other respondents. On that occasion one of the respondents had referred to a newspaper article and the alleged statement of M.S. regarding Muslims and the destruction of mosques. An allegation had been also made that M.S. had covered the coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the coat of arms of Republika Srpska. S.C. had confirmed having heard people speaking about that in the city. 26. After analysing the statements of the witnesses and the respondents, the court found that the facts reported in the letter regarding the calendar of religious services during the month of Ramadan and the broadcasting of sevdalinka were untrue, since “the letter obviously did not contain what (R.S. and O.S.) had said about the appellant and her behaviour regarding the religious calendar and the broadcasting of sevdalinka”. Noting that the allegation that M.S. was the author of the statement published in the newspaper was untrue, the court stated: “... on the basis of S.C.’s statement [the court establishes] that at the meeting that preceded the preparation of the letter a distinguished member of a [respondent] had informed those attending the meeting that the appellant had given a statement to the newspaper, whose contents were identical to the contents of the letter. On subsequent verification [S.C.] established that such a text had been published, but that the appellant had not been the author ...” 27. The court further stated that: “The respondents also did not prove the truthfulness of the allegation that in her office the appellant had covered the coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the coat of arms of Republika Srpska. On the basis of evidence given by the witnesses examined at the trial (B.S., D.N. and K.P.), [the court] established that the appellant had put an invitation card, which bore the coat of arms of Republika Srpska, in the corner of the coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina ...” 28. In conclusion, the court stated: “By the letter sent to the Office of High Representative BD - International Supervisor of the BD, the President of the BD’s Assembly and the Governor of the BD, the respondents damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and honour in the place in which she lives and works. They did so by expressing and disseminating to the above persons facts about the appellant’s behaviour, actions and statements which they knew or ought to have known were false ...” 29. The Court of Appeal ordered the applicants to inform the International Supervisor for BD, the President of the Assembly of BD and the Governor of BD within 15 days that they retracted the letter, failing which they would have to pay jointly the equivalent of EUR 1,280 in non-pecuniary damages to M.S. They were further ordered to give the judgment to the BD radio and television and to two newspapers for publication at the applicants’ own expense. As regards the calculation of the amount of non-pecuniary damages, the court stated: “When assessing the amount of damages, namely, just satisfaction to be awarded to the appellant, [the court] took into consideration that the impugned facts had been mentioned in the article published in the media ...” 30. On 15 November 2007 M.S. filed a request with the BD Court of First Instance for enforcement of the above judgment. On 5 December 2007 the Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution. 31. On 12 December 2007 the applicants paid the equivalent of EUR 1,445 (inclusive of interest and enforcement costs) in enforcement of the judgment of 11 July 2007. On 27 March 2009 the Court of First Instance closed the enforcement proceedings. 32. On 15 October 2007 the applicants applied to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina seeking protection of their rights under Article 10 of the Convention. 33. On 13 May 2010 the Constitutional Court held that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society” and concluded that there had been no violation of Article II/3.h) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Article 10 of the Convention. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “34. At the outset the Constitutional Court notes that the appellants did not deny that their liability for defamation was based on the Defamation Act 2003 and that, therefore, the interference with the right [to freedom of expression] protected by Article 10 of the European Convention was prescribed by law ... 35. The impugned judgment was delivered in civil defamation proceedings initiated by the respondent against the appellants ... accordingly, the interference pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the “reputation or rights of others”. 36. What remains to be determined is whether the interference complained of was ‘necessary in a democratic society’... 37. With regard to the existence of a ‘pressing social need’, the Constitutional Court observes that the impugned (court) decisions concern the letter which the appellants sent to the authorities of the BD and the Supervisor for BD casting the plaintiff (M.S.) in a negative light. The Court of Appeal considered it to be defamation because (the case) concerned statements whose veracity could be verified ... The Constitutional Court notes that the Court of Appeal qualified the impugned statements in the letter as statements of fact and not as value judgments. The Constitutional Court also considers that they are to be regarded statements of fact which should be proved. The appellants failed to do so, as they did not make reasonable efforts to verify the truthfulness of [those] statements of fact before [reporting], but merely made [those statements]. 38. The Constitutional Court considers that the Court of Appeal established without doubt that the impugned factual statements about M.S. were false and that the appellants were liable for defamation. From the submissions of the two witnesses, from whom the appellants received the information presented in the letter (concerning the part of the letter in which it was stated that M.S. ‘made a point of removing from the wall (and tore to pieces) the calendar with the schedule of religious services during the month of Ramadan and as the editor of the entertainment programme banned the broadcasting of sevdalinka arguing that that type of song had no cultural or musical value’), the Court of Appeal established that there was an evident inconsistency between what had been said to the appellants and what they had reported in the letter. Furthermore, the statement in the impugned letter that M.S. had given an interview concerning the destruction of mosques was refuted by another witness, who submitted that subsequent verification had revealed that M.S. had not been the author of the said interview. Finally, the appellants failed to prove the veracity of the allegations that M.S. had covered the coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the coat of arms of the Republika Srpska. In view of the above, in the present case the public interest that permits reporting on alleged irregularities in the conduct of public officials cannot be based on manifestly untrue factual allegations which impugn their reputation [and] which cannot be regarded as criticism that they ought to tolerate in view of their function. Accordingly, the court considers that the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that there was ‘a pressing social need’ in the present case [for the interference with the appellants’ right to freedom of expression]. 39. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court notes that the Court of Appeal awarded non-pecuniary damages to M.S. because her reputation was affected by the untrue statements made in the impugned letter ... The Constitutional Court has already stated in its previous case-law that a person’s reputation forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity ... ... 43. The appellants ... failed to verify the impugned statements beforehand as was their duty. The Court of Appeal established that the appellants had damaged M.S.’s reputation by making untrue allegations which caused her mental distress ...When deciding on the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage and its amount, the Court of Appeal took into account the purpose of those damages and the rule that it should not favour aspirations that were incompatible with its nature and social purpose. 44. [T]he Constitutional Court considers that the measure imposed on the appellants in the present case was proportionate to the aim pursued ...The court further considers that the Court of Appeal did not go beyond its discretionary power in deciding on the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage ... [T]he Constitutional Court finds that the reasons the Court of Appeal gave were ‘relevant’ and ‘sufficient’ within the meaning of Article 10 of the European Convention. 45. In view of the above, the Constitutional Court considers that the interference with the appellants’ right to freedom of expression was ‘necessary in a democratic society’ and that, therefore, there has been no violation of Article II/3.h) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Article 10 of the European Convention.” 34. On 21 September 2010 the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicants. 35. According to the minutes of a meeting of the Management Board of the BD’s radio station dated 9 May 2003, there were two candidates for the post of the radio’s director, one of whom was M.S. The Management Board decided to extend the mandate of the acting director of the radio given that “due to political pressure and repeated voting” no decision could be made in respect of either of the candidates.