In 2009, the case drew the attention of the Media Freedom Observatory of Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. At the request of the Foundation, Dr. Marlena Pecyna agreed to be the pro bono legal representative of the defendant.

The Facts of the Case
On 8 May 2009, the accused P. Wodniak prepared a short video report for “Fakty Oświęcim” entitled “Blocked the Road, Because They Did Not Want a Gravel-Pit.” The reporter presented testimonials of Broszkowic citizens, who participated in blocking the road. The citizens organized a blockade in order to protest against a nearby gravel-pit from being functional. According to the local representatives, the gravel-pit was an illegal enterprise and created a flood threat for the area. The report also contains footage of the Mayor of Broszkowic, stating that there is already a criminal investigation underway on the ex-owner of the gravel-pit. In the interview, the Mayor also released the full name of the plaintiff, Mr. Artur Kierczyński.

As a result of the report, Mr. A. Kierczyński sued Mr. Wodniak for violation of personal interest for releasing his full surname while there was an ongoing criminal trial against him. In Mr. A. Kierczyński ‘s opinion, the reporter’s behavior breached the rule of alleged innocence and art. 13 bill 2 of the press law (“One cannot publish in the media personal information and images of individuals, against whom there is an ongoing practice or court proceeding as well as personal information and images of witnesses, wounded and hurt, unless these persons agree to it.”).

In his lawsuit, Mr. A. Kierczyński stated that because of the report, the contractors of his firm, friends and family learned of the ongoing legal proceedings against him. As a consequence of the report, his professional and personal relationships have deteriorated. In the complaint Mr. A. Kierczyński submitted to the court, he demanded Mr. Wodniak pay a minimum of 15.000 PLN in reparations for inflicting personal interest, an apology as well as removing the aspects of the report in which his personal information is exposed from the website.

Court proceedings

The court heard final arguments on the case from both sides on 15 June 2010. The plaintiff’s attorney underlined that the case before the court had no relation to issues of “silencing the local press.” The case was about the violation of journalism ethics, press law, and the law of innocence when information about the plaintiff’s criminal case was leaked in the accused’s report. The report seen by the family, friends, and employers of the plaintiff had negatively impacted his personal life and created a painful situation for the plaintiff.

Mr. Wodniak’s counsel presented many counterarguments. According to the accused, the leading subject of the report was the road blockade in Borszkowice and its causes, not the plaintiff. The goal of the material was not to summarize the on-going proceeding against Artur K. It was a report about a local community’s point of view and actions when faced with traffic difficulties on a country road. The journalist wanted to present the situation scrupulously, which is the reason why he did not edit the interview about the blockade. Thus, to Mr. Wodniak, granting the edits Mr. A. Kierczyński desired would amount to censure.

The accused also brought attention to the ‘news’ character of his film. Material of this type – which affects the social interest and is aimed at informing inhabitants of the surrounding counties about difficulties in the road traffic—has to be immediately assembled and posted on the web in order to be timely and of use to the populace. In the context of the purpose and presentation of the recorded material, the insertion of a short statement by the mayor did not raise suspicions of the accused. Moreover, he  did not explain at length the proceedings against the plaintiff because the subject did not fit into the objectives of the report.

The attorney for Mr. Wodniak highlighted that her client could not reply to a breach in personal interest because – if there has been a breach at all- the mayor of Broszkowic was the one who committed it (and who has anyhow apologized for his statement). The civil code foresees the responsibility for direct breaches of personal goods, however the law cannot be construed such that anybody, like third parties, will be held responsible for harming another’s character.

Furthermore according Mr. Wodniak’s legal representative, there was no breach of art 13 bill 2 of the press law. The bill regulates reporting of on-going court proceedings. However, Mr. Wodniak’s report did not provide any details of court procedures; It only provided details on the road blockade leading. A good report of this situation required presenting the reasons for the road block, such as the opinion of locals that the gravel-pit was illegal and a threat to the health and life of the local population. So, as the report did not cover the on-going lawsuit against the plaintiff, there could be no harm based on art 13 bill 2 of the accused.

According to the attorney, the so-called press verdict also did no violate the law assuming innocence. Violations of this rule occur in situations where the given individual is reported to have committed a particular crime. The mayor’s statement, however, gave no indication about what types of procedures, which court, or violations of which acts the plaintiff was facing.

Moreover, the plaintiff’s claim was- according to the accused- unjustifiable, because the alleged harm to personal interest is not high enough to trigger legal action. If the information disclosed in the report is truthful, then the journalist is not held responsible. The accused maintained that according to the laws of journalism ethics – his intervention was justifiable because it was an important social interest.

Finally, as pointed out by the attorney – the plaintiff during the trial was not able to point out the negative effects of the supposed breach of personal goods, even if some breach occurred.

The Final Verdict
The court ultimately dismissed the entire claim. In the short oral explanation of the verdict, the judge emphasized, that she fully agrees with the arguments presented by the legal representative of the accused. She believed that the film footage was within the boundaries of freedom of speech and recognized the right of the locals in Broszkowic and nearby areas to receive information about local affairs. The report and the statement made by the mayor of Broszkowic were primarily about the road blockade and did not refer directly to the lawsuit of the plaintiff. The judge recognized that the accused did not allow the plaintiff the opportunity to verify the statements in the report despite the characterization of the report as news. However, the accused was working under the assumption that the statements of the Broszkowic mayor, a leading public official, could be trusted.

* The case was dealt by Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights within Observatory of Freedom of Media