Johnson wrote:
> saint napisał(a):
>
>>
>> A na dodatek, to pan prokurator jest osoba publiczna nie podlegajaca
>> ochronie.
>>
>
> A od kiedy to osoby publiczne nie podlegają ochronie? Popatrz na art.
> 226 kk- on według ciebie nie istnieje?
>
>


Jest niewazny w takim brzmieniu. Nigdy nie byl zreszta. Tak jak jest
niewazny paragraf o ochronie uczuc katolickich (ostentacyjnie zwanych
religijnymi).

Jezeli prokurator chce sobie nabic guza, to mu wolno.
Strasbourg znowu wydal wyrok w sprawie dzielnych polskich prostytutek w
togach.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/March/Chamber
judgments290305.htm

Sokołowski v. Poland (no. 75955/01) Violation of Article 10

The applicant, Roman Sokołowski, is a Polish national who was born in
1950 and lives in Wodzisław.

In 1995 a local branch of the Christian-National Association published a
political leaflet containing an article written by the applicant, which
maintained that local councillors had elected themselves members of
local election committees out of self interest. The article argued that
membership of the election committees - a paid position - should have
been assigned to local citizens with less money than the councillors.
The money paid to committee members was then compared to the market
value of various consumer goods. It was further suggested that the
councillors, by receiving that money paid from local taxes, would
effectively "take away" those goods from the readers of the article.

One of the commission members identified, J.K., brought criminal
proceedings against the applicant. On 26 June 1996 the applicant was
convicted of slander. The court found that the leaflet implied that J.K
had intended to commit theft. The applicant was fined 1,000 Polish
zlotys (PLN) and ordered to pay court costs. He subsequently appealed
unsuccessfully.

The applicant complained that his conviction was in breach of Article 10
(freedom of expression).

The European Court of Human Rights considered that the article in
question did not amount to a gratuitous personal attack on J.K. There
was no doubt that the leaflet concerned issues of public interest and
concern, i.e. certain specific acts of the local municipal councillors
carried out in the exercise of their public mandate. The article
questioned whether it was appropriate at all that they should use their
- paid - public office as an opportunity to enrich themselves by
allocating themselves further, temporary but paid, functions in the
public service. In the Court's opinion, those were important issues
which might give rise to a serious public discussion concerning the
rules of conduct applicable to elected representatives of the local
community.

As to whether the article should be considered as a statement of fact or
a value judgment, the Court noted that the gist of the applicant's
criticism, couched in ironical language, was that the criticised
behaviour of the councillors was improper. Given the arguments contained
in the article and its satirical nature, the Court considered that it
was a value judgment and not a serious accusation of theft.

The Court further noted that the Polish courts did not provide an
explanation as to why they did not accept that the applicant had been
acting in the public interest or why he was considered to have acted in
bad faith.

The Court noted that the assessment of the councillors' conduct
formulated by the applicant had a factual basis in that J.K. had put
forward his candidature to the election committee and had been elected
to it by other councillors. In addition, the domestic courts did not
consider that this information disseminated by the applicant was untrue.

The Court was also of the view that the minor impact that the leaflet -
of which only 150 copies were printed - could have had, should have been
taken into account by the courts.

The reasons relied on by Poland were neither relevant nor sufficient to
show that the interference complained of was "necessary in a democratic"
society. The applicant had faced a harsh penalty; the fine of PLN 1000
was equivalent to the applicant's monthly income and could have been
replaced in default by three months and ten days' imprisonment. The
Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of
Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR 700 for pecuniary damage and
EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in
English.)