Usually, any discussion about freedom of speech in Poland involves arguments concerning noxiousness of Article 212 of the Criminal Code (the offence of defamation). Meanwhile, also other regulations and procedures limiting the said freedom operate in Poland. An example of the latter is the case of Stanisław P., a journalist with Łowiecki Dziennik Myśliwych (“The Hunting Gazette of Hunters”) and a hunter. 

Łowiecki Dziennik Myśliwych is a registered e-paper and P. has a journalist ID. In January 2008 he described an extra hunting organised by the board of the Hunting Association in Biała Podlaska which was kept in secret from the Association’s members. Pursuant to the Hunting Law Act of 13 October 1995 (Journal of Laws No. 127, item 1066), a notice of each hunting must be given to the local forest district manager and head of the commune (gmina, the lowest local government unit). Stanisław P. found out that the said notices had not been given. It was confirmed by the heads of two communes in which the hunting took place. Describing the event, the author also named the members of the Association who had shown no interest in irregularities in the hunting’s organisation. Year after the article was published, the PZŁ Disciplinary Proceedings Representative brought an action against P. 

Stanisław P. was accused of a hunting offence consisting  in acting to the detriment of PZŁ and infringing the hunter’s good name. Such offences are described in the PZŁ Articles. P faces a penalty of reprimand, suspension of his association membership for the term of 6 months up to 3 years or even expelling from the Association. For a long-standing hunter and hunting fiend, the described penalties are severe since only the members of PZŁ can legally hunt.

The trial before the Circuit Hunting Tribunal in Warsaw commenced on 11 August. The proceedings are observed by the HFHR. The case is a good pretext for considering whether the procedure of hearing cases before hunting tribunals conforms to international standards. Hunting tribunals may be considered as a type of disciplinary tribunals. Their decisions may affect rights and freedoms of the hunting associations in the area of civil law. In the judgement Frankowicz v. Poland (of 16 December 2008, application no. 53025/99), the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that disciplinary tribunals must comply with the requirement of diligence and impartiality and the law should allow a possibility of appealing against decision of such a body before a professional judicial body. 

There are no objections as to the composition of hunting tribunals acting on the basis of the PZŁ Articles. Only the PZŁ members can serve as tribunals’ judges. Proceedings before the tribunals are heard in two instances, an accused person can appeal against a decision of the Circuit Hunting Tribunal before the Central Hunting Tribunal. However, the doubts are raised by the provisions allowing the accused to lodge an appeal before a common court only in the case of being expelled from the Association (such a right does not apply in the cases of suspending the membership rights). Furthermore, only a PZŁ member may act as a defence counsel before the Association’s disciplinary tribunals. It appears that nothing should prevent enjoying the right of audience before hunting tribunals by professional attorneys (advocates or legal advisors), even if they are not members of PZŁ. 

The case of Stanisław P. is also yet another example of limitation of the freedom of speech resulting from internal regulations of professional associations and self-governing bodies. Apparently, not only the doctors’ professional association (cf. the case of Zofia Sz. decided by the Constitutional Tribunal, case no. SK 16/07) but also PZŁ has adopted regulations that may significantly affect the members’ right to criticism or expressing their own opinions.  

Stanisław P. tried to call for action to explain the unregistered hunting. The action would have not been brought if the journalist was not a hunter. Then, the allegedly aggrieved parties would not have been able to use the PZŁ Articles to protect their image. They would only be  able to bring a civil or criminal action against the journalist who would be protected by the press law and able to prove that his words were true. Consequently, initiating disciplinary proceedings may be seen as an additional sanction imposed on a hunter and journalist acting in the public interest.

By Adam Bodnar

and Dominika Bychawska-Siniarska.

Mr Bodnar is the Head of the Legal Department and Secretary of the Board of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights.

Ms Bychawska-Siniarska is the Coordinator of the Observatory of the Freedom of Media in Poland.

Translation: Piotr Mleczko