The decision in comment represents an important step in the case-law relating to the delicate balance between the right to reputation and the freedom of expression and of the press. The case arises from the publication of an article in the newspaper ABC that accused two social educators of a center for minors of promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Following the publication, the foundation that managed the center launched a disciplinary investigation against one of the two, which was later dismissed, while colleagues and directors officially denied the allegations, praising the professionalism of the educators. Despite the denials, the two reported serious damage to their reputation and their careers.

The Court first recalls that art. 8 of the Convention may require the State to adopt concrete measures to ensure respect for private life, even within the framework of relations between private citizens. To this end, the Court has identified certain essential parameters to weigh the competing rights arising from art. 8 and 10 of the Convention (known as the Axel Springer criteria). These criteria include: the subject of the publication and its effective contribution to a debate of public interest; the degree of notoriety of the person involved and their prior conduct; the content, form, and consequences of the publication. Finally, where relevant, the manner in which the information was acquired (para. 89). The Court emphasizes that the protection offered by Art. 10 of the Convention to journalists is not absolute. This means that the protection of the media is conditional upon the good faith of journalists, who have a duty to provide accurate information and rigorously verify the facts, especially when these may harm the reputation of individuals. Exemption from the obligation of verification is allowed only in exceptional circumstances and depends on the nature of the allegations and the reliability of the sources used (para. 90). To assess whether there has been a violation of rights, the Court adopts a contextual approach: every controversial statement must not be analyzed in isolation, but evaluated within the framework of the entire publication. The judges then examine the content as a whole, considering the specific terms, the methods of preparing the piece, and the global context in which the information was disseminated, in order to avoid partial or decontextualized interpretations (para. 91).

The Court confirmed the absence of a violation by Spain based on several determining factors. A crucial passage concerns the allegation made by the applicants that the ABC article constituted an example of “hate speech” such as to exclude it from the protection of press freedom. The Court rejects this interpretation, recalling that art. 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) applies only when it is immediately evident that freedom of expression is being used for purposes contrary to the values of the Convention. In the case at hand, the Strasbourg Judges confirm the conclusions of the Spanish courts: the article did not contain manifest insults or indiscriminate attacks against Islam in general. Although the language was strong and the headlines controversial, the text focused on a specific and legitimate theme: the flaws in administrative oversight and the risk of radicalization in facilities for vulnerable minors (paras. 95-97).

The Court emphasizes that the article was not mere gossip, but dealt with a matter of extreme public interest, especially considering the high level of terrorism alert in Spain in 2011. This drastically reduces the space for limiting press freedom. On the other hand, it is recognized that the applicants were not public figures and had not sought notoriety, a factor that would usually require more rigorous privacy protection, were it not balanced by the social relevance of the issue addressed (paras. 98-99).

The analysis then moves to the distinction between statements of fact and value judgments. The Court reiterates that, while facts can be proven, the truth of opinions is not; however, even an opinion must rest on a sufficient factual basis. The Spanish courts had meticulously analyzed the accusations (such as belonging to a party or taking boys to the mosque), concluding that they were not in themselves defamatory or indicative of violent activities. A fixed point of the judgment is that journalists have the right to report information coming from official sources (in this case, local authorities) without the obligation to conduct independent investigations to verify its accuracy. The protection of sources and reliance on institutional reports are considered cornerstones of press freedom (paras. 100-107).

The Court finds no failings in the conduct of the journalist, who had also attempted to contact the center to obtain a reply. Furthermore, the applicants' thesis that their careers had been destroyed by the publication is refuted: the data shows that both continued to work in the sector for years after the article was published. The fact that they waited four years before filing a civil lawsuit is interpreted by the Court as a sign of inconsistency with respect to the alleged gravity and immediacy of the damage suffered (paras. 108-113).

Ultimately, the Court establishes that there was no violation of Art. 8 of the Convention because:

 

“the national courts conducted the required balancing exercise between the competing rights at stake in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law, and it discerns no strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts” (para. 114).

 

(Comment by Laura Restuccia)