003-3751142-4283378

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 251 (2011)   22.11.2011   Finding a journalist guilty of defaming an ex-prime minister,   who had been dead for 30 years, breached the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case John Anthony Mizzi v. Malta (application   no. 17320/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a   majority, that there had been:   A violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) of the European   Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned a journalist’s complaint that he had been found guilty of defaming   Sir Paul Boffa, a former Prime Minister of Malta, who had died more than 30 years   earlier.   Principal facts   The applicant, John Anthony Mizzi, is a Maltese national who was born in 1925 and lives   in Malta (Malta).   In February 1994, The Sunday Times of Malta, a national English-language newspaper,   published the applicant’s letter to the editor in which he commented on the authorities’   plans to build a yacht marina in the inner part of St. Paul’s bay. In particular, he   expressed concern that the neighbouring seaside-village residents had not been   consulted about the project. The article also discussed briefly the history behind the   project. It suggested, among other things, that after World War II and during the time   when Sir Paul Boffa was a Prime Minister of Malta, permission was given to build on the   bay “because Dr Boffa wanted to build there”.   As a result of that letter, the son and heir of the late Sir Boffa sued Mr Mizzi for   defamation in civil proceedings asking for damages. He argued that the statement that   his father had wanted to build in the bay attributed false and despicable intentions to his   father.   The Civil Court found that the letter had been defamatory concerning Sir Paul Boffa as it   implied that he had taken advantage of his position as head of the civil administration to   build in an area for which planning permission had not been granted previously. The   court ordered Mr Mizzi to pay 700 euros (EUR) in damages to Sir Boffa’s son. The   judgment was upheld on appeal. Further court proceedings brought by Mr Mizzi seeking   constitutional redress were concluded by the court dismissing his claim.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10, Mr Mizzi complained that the Maltese courts’ judgments, finding   him guilty of defamation and ordering him to pay civil damages, breached his right to   freedom of expression.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 March 2010.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President,   Lech Garlicki (Poland),   Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),   George Nicolaou (Cyprus),   Ledi Bianku (Albania),   Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges,   David Scicluna (Malta), ad hoc Judge,   and also Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Freedom of expression (Article 10)   It was common ground between the parties that the judgments pronounced in the   defamation action against Mr Mizzi had interfered with his right to freedom of   expression. The interference had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the   legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, as required by Article 10.   Examining whether the domestic courts’ findings had been “necessary in a democratic   society”, which was the final requirement for a measure to be compatible with the   Convention standards under Article 10, the Court noted that the Maltese courts had   interpreted Mr Mizzi’s statement concerning Dr Boffa as meaning that the Prime Minister   at the time had wanted to build in the area for himself.   While it was true that Mr Mizzi could have phrased his statement in a more careful   manner, that meaning was only one of two possible interpretations of the statement.   Even if the interpretation of the domestic courts were accepted, the Court found that the   Maltese courts had presumed the malicious intent on the part of Mr Mizzi and had not   examined whether he had acted in good fact.   In particular, his statement had to be considered in the light of the overall focus of his   letter. The part about Sir Boffa had in fact been a mere historic detail in an article which   had dealt with an entirely different subject. It had only been mentioned in passing and   held no significance for the point the article had raised. The tone of the letter, including   the part on Sir Boffa, had been written in the calmest of tones and could hardly be   considered as provocative or exaggerated in the context.   Furthermore, the domestic courts had not given any weight to the fact that Sir Boffa had   been a prime minister and, therefore, a public figure who had to tolerate broader limits   of acceptable criticism. Neither had the courts considered that the article was devoted to   a subject of some public interest.   Finally, while Sir Boffa’s son had had the right to bring an action for defamation, Sir   Boffa himself had died more than three decades before the article had been published.   Thus the damage which the statement might have caused to his reputation had not been   serious. The fact that the proceedings had been civil, as opposed to criminal, and that Mr   Mizzi had been sentenced to pay a relatively small fine, had not affected the conclusion   that the standards applied by the Maltese courts had not been compatible with those of   Article 10.   There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 10.   Other articles   As regards Mr Mizzi’s complaint under Article 6 § 3, namely that he could not   cross-examine his accuser because he had died, the Court noted that Article 6 was not   applicable to that complaint as the proceedings in question had not concerned the   determination of any criminal charge against the applicant. Even viewed against the   general fairness requirements of Article 6 § 1, the Court found that Mr Mizzi had not   been denied a fair trial.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Malta was to pay Mr Mizzi EUR 700 in respect of pecuniary damage,   EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,300 for costs and expenses.   Separate opinion   Judge Scicluna expressed a dissenting opinion the text of which is annexed to the   judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Petra Leppee Fraize (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 07)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3