The case concerned the book "Przerwane życiorysy – Obława Augustowska” (Interrupted Lives – the Augustów Roundup). Ms Maciejowska, the book’s author, accused S.W., a clergyman, social activist and founder of the Union for the Memory of Victims of the Augustów Roundup, that in the 1980s he had allegedly forbidden his family members to talk about the events that took place in the Suwałki region in July 1945, later known as the Augustów Roundup.
The trial court ruled that Alicja Maciejowska had violated personal interests of S.W., and ordered the defendant to pay five thousand zloty to Caritas Polska and publish apologies in the Nasz Dziennik and Gazeta Współczesna daily newspapers.
On appeal, the second instance court partly affirmed the journalist’s submissions and ordered her to publish an apology only in Gazeta Współczesna, and dismissed the claimant’s request for publication in Nasz Dziennik.
The Court of Appeal also dismissed the claim to oblige the respondent to make a charitable contribution of PLN 5,000 to Caritas. Similarly, the amount of the court costs in the first instance proceedings which Ms Maciejowska was condemned to pay to the claimant was reduced. The remainder of the defendant’s appeal, as well as the entire appeal of the Institute of National Remembrance, was dismissed. The court’s judgment is final.
The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights filed an amicus curiae brief in the appellate proceedings. “In our brief we have emphasised that media freedom and unrestricted public debate are crucial for the development of a democratic society. In our opinion, if a journalist voices her opinion in a historical debate on a topical subject and comments activities of a public figure, the limits of the freedom of speech applicable in that case should be broaden because of the role played by such a journalist in the society. These considerations should be taken into account in the assessment of the illegality of the claimant’s violations of personal interests”, says Dorota Głowacka, a lawyer with the HFHR. “The second instance court’s decision to apply less severe sanctions against the defendant should be assessed positively. Awarding non-pecuniary damages which are excessive and inadequate for a given violation may have the ‘chilling effect’ on the freedom of journalistic expression”, adds Ms Głowacka.
