V utorok Európsky súd pre ľudské práva (ESĽP) vyhlásil rozsudok v prípade Mesič proti Chorvátsku. Stjepan Mesič je bývalý chorvátsky prezident. Na ESĽP ho priviedol spor s tlačou, ktorý obsahoval konštatovanie, že bol zapojený do korupcie v súvislosti s armádnym nákupom od fínskej zbrojovky Patria. Ak sa čitateľ dočítal na koniec žalovaného článku, zistil, že to tak celkom nie je. ESĽP rozhodol, že kritickým článkom nedošlo k porušeniu práva S. Mesiča.
Sudca Egidijus Kúris (Litva) k tomu pripojil rozsiahle nesúhlasné stanovisko, že v tomto prípade išlo o ľahkovážnu a nezodpovednú žurnalistiku, ktorá si neslúži ochranu zo strany ESĽP a verí, že z prípadu sa nestane precedens. K odlišnému stanovisku sa pripojil aj jeho kolega sudca Jovan Ilievski (Macedónsko).
Disent ponúka podnetné čítanie o zodpovednej žurnalistike v súvislosti s informovaním o trestných konaniach. Je veľmi dlhý (55 bodov, vyše 10-tisíc slov, hodina a viac čítania), ale dobre sa číta – E. Kúris ho píše zrozumiteľne, pridal niekoľko sarkastických poznámok, čo tiež pomáha udržať pozornosť pri texte.
„The domestic courts considered that the article in question had been based on „sufficiently“ or „previously“ verified information and that the author had acted in good faith. The majority appear to be convinced by this argument. They state that „the press release of 28 June 2013 and the Kanta-Häme District Court’s judgment did indeed indicate that the article as a whole had a sufficient factual basis, as the domestic courts established“. I take this conclusion with a considerable pinch of salt. The wording of the said press release was quite circumspect. It did not explicitly state that the applicant was suspected of taking a bribe, only that the „Finnish defendants [were] suspected to have participated in promising or giving bribes through intermediaries in exchange for actions [by] the President of the Republic of Croatia and [a] general manager of a Croatian State-owned company, who were considered to have leverage in the procurement procedure [for] the vehicles“. In addition, contrary to the assertion that „[i] f someone gave a bribe, it is clear that someone on the other side received it“, and that that „someone“ could be no one other than the applicant, it is quite possible that even if the money did change hands, the hands „on the other side“ were not necessarily the applicant’s. For have we not heard of cases where the money stays with the intermediary, although the bribe-giver is confident that it will go all the way to the intended recipient?“
„I finish where I started – by reiterating that this judgment sets a very low standard for the protection of personality rights against trial by media. Not only does it forcefully and resolutely depart from the tenets of responsible journalism – it effectively encourages and promotes journalism which I have difficulty in describing other than as irresponsible. I only hope that this judgment – assuming the case is not re-examined by the Grand Chamber, a re-assessment for which it cries out, – does not become a precedent that is followed in subsequent cases. Hope springs eternal. Lastly, I would again state that readers of this opinion should not be distracted by the fact that the applicant was (and still is) a public figure. My quixotic objections to this most unfortunate judgment are not in the least related to the applicant’s status. Next time it may be someone else. It is hardly necessary to remind ourselves of the Niemöller principle. Nor for whom the bell tolls.“
