The case earned media attention in Poland as one of the most involved is Mr. Z. W., a prominent politician, a parliament deputy and a former ministry of the Polish government. The applicant’s son-in-law runs a construction company that in 2002 built a villa for Mr. Z. W. As a result of a financial disagreement, the applicant wrote letters to various politicians as well as to E. J., a journalist and a chief editor of a television programme. In the letters Ms. Gąsior alleged Mr. Z.W. a financial fraud. She maintains that Mr. Z.W. owes her son’s-in-law construction company as much as 240,000 PLN (approx. 60 000 EUR). The applicant asked the public television to reconsider inviting Z. W. and allowing him to express moral judgements. The content of the letters soon was made public by journalists.

As a result Mr. Z.W. passed a private bill of indictment against Ms. Gąsior for defamation. Z.W. maintained he was wrongly alleged not having paid the construction company. The Kraków District Court convicted the applicant for defamation but conditionally discontinued the criminal proceedings and made her pay 1,000 PLN to Z.W. and apologise him. According to the court, the applicant’s goal was only to help her son’s-in-law to win the case. Moreover, the court stated that the applicant’s words were not facts, although both parties “have their arguments, more or less justified”. After the applicant’s appeal, the Kraków Regional Court changed this conviction by ordering the applicant only to publish apology to Z.W. and reimbursing his costs, without making her pay any further financial justification.

Ms. Gąsior decided to apply to European Court of Human Rights. In her application she cited the Court’s case law that states the limits of criticism are broader when they apply to politicians. This rule applies even when the criticism doesn’t refer directly to their public work but it touches facts that cast a shadow on their ability to serve the public. The politicians’ limits of permissible criticism are wider because they are able to defend themselves in media. What the applicant questioned was inter alia the moral legitimation of Z.W. to use media.

In Polish legal system a person accused of the crime of indictment is able to defend themself only by presenting “proof of the truth” which confirms his previous allegations. In this case however, according to the applicant, it was impossible to present it since the letters consisted in a large part of value-judgements, that cannot be qualified as true or false. In the Court case law, the necessity to proof the value-judgements was recognised as a breach of the Convention.
In the applicant’s view, the letters she sent to television and public persons should be considered as enjoyment of the right to the public complaint, guaranteed in the Polish constitution.