The remedy was granted in the action brought by Piotr S., a Sejm deputy, against Grupa Wydawnicza S. sp. z o.o., a publishing company, and the journalist Piotr P. in which the claimant sought a legal remedy against an alleged breach of his personal interests. The first instance court held that the parliamentarian showed a prima facie case that an article run in K.T.. a local newspaper, might have violated his personal interests. The piece revealed that the deputy had used sexual services performed by Magdalena I. when he was at the official travel assignment to Lublin, a trip financed from the public purse.
In March 2014, the Regional Court in Warsaw issued an injunction in order to protect the claimant’s claims in the case he brought to protect his personal interests. The injunction prevented the defendants, Grupa Wydawnicza S. Sp. z o.o. and Piotr P., from disseminating “information about the claimant and his family in the context of events from 19 December 2012”. The ban covered both the printed issue of the paper and its website.
The attorney for the defendants appealed against the Regional Court’s decision and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights submitted an amicus curiae brief. “In our brief we argued that the ban on publication issued against the journalist had excessively interfered with his freedom of expression because of the nature of this measure and a very wide scope of application”, says Dorota Głowacka, a lawyer with the HFHR.
In May, the Court of Appeal in Warsaw dismissed the claimant’s motion for an interim injunction. The Court justified the decision by emphasising that an interim injunction which prevents a media outlet from publishing certain content must be considered an extraordinary measure. Accordingly, the court needs to balance the public interest and that of a person whose legal rights have been infringed upon. In doing this balancing act, judges must also consider the special “mission” of the mass media.
“Since the claimant held an important public function – he was a parliamentarian – the court decided that a publication ban would contravene a significant public interest”, explains Ms Głowacka.
The court noted that if an interim injunction is contrary to an important public interest, the court will be obliged to refuse granting such an injunction.
