In the oral reasons for the decision, SC judges indicated that the circuit court had not sufficiently addressed the factors determining the degree of social harm of the offence, thus disregarding the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in October 2012.
In October 2012 the SC heard the same case. On that occasion referring to one count of the accusation, namely the blogger’s statement that Ms Springer “forces Mosina officials to break the law or face the consequences (…)”, the Supreme Court decided to reverse the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for reconsideration to the second instance court. “The SC noted that the fact that the alleged offence might have been committed only online may not be the sole basis for discontinuation of the case“, says Dominika Bychawska-Siniarska, HFHR’s lawyer, who observed the proceedings.
Furthermore, last week taking a decision on remanding the case for reconsideration the SC judges held that the circuit court failed to investigate the issue of intention with which the appellant acted. They also stressed, quoting after counsel for the private complainant that the Internet was a specific medium and any contents placed there will permanently be there.
As a courtesy to the Helsinki Foundation, advocate Artur Pietryka agreed to represent the blogger in proceedings before the SC.
