W.K. is a person with a disability. He maintains that X, a supported employment enterprise, was a scene of mobbing and various violations of health and safety rules. According to the defendant, the irregularities caused an occupational accident which resulted in him progressing to a more severe disability. In consequence, he was recommended to take on lighter work and work fewer hours. Following the incident, the company terminated his employment contract.
For K., his experiences were an impulse to place the controversial post on X on a job recruitment website. In the meantime, the defendant reported the irregularities to the National Labour Inspectorate. An NLI inspection confirmed that the company was responsible for certain safety violations.
In March 2013, W.K. was found guilty in summary proceedings of committing the offence contrary to article 212(2) of the Criminal Code. The District Court in Bydgoszcz ordered him to pay a fine of PLN 1200. K. appealed against the court’s ruling. After the case was re-opened and heard in full trial, the Court acquitted the defendant.
In the oral justification for the judgment, the Court noted that W.K. had only expressed his own opinion about his former employer and done it within legally accepted limits. Critical statements, or value-judgements, in principle cannot be verified as true or false. Consequently, the defendant cannot be requested to prove their veracity. In light of the above, his opinions were not defamatory within the meaning of article 212, argued the court. Even if opinions are groundless and harmful, the injured party may only assert their rights in a civil action for the protection of personal interests, and not in criminal proceedings.
Judge Małgorzata Juszczak-Krzyżanowska also observed that the defendant’s statements were of a general nature and constituted an expression of his personal, negative experiences relating to his former workplace. As such, in the judge’s opinion, they should not be interpreted literally. The defendant had a right to warn other potential employees against taking on employment with X. The judge further noted the significance of freedom of speech in a democratic society, referring to the relevant standards developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Court ordered X, the private complainant in the case, to pay the costs of the proceedings. The judgment is not yet final.
“This is an important decision setting the limits of the freedom to express critical but fact-based opinions online. As a rule, we may expect that a company having the status of a supported employment enterprise pays more attention to the safety of its employees. Therefore, should any violations in this regard happen, the company must brace itself for criticism”, says Dorota Głowacka, a lawyer of the HFHR who observed the trial.
W.K. is represented by Mr Jakub Czarnecki, acting pro bono as a courtesy to the HFHR.
