European Court of Human Rights European judgment in a freedom of expression case

Press release 237/2016
16.12.2016

On 15 December 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handed down a judgment of a violation of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the case, the applicant, a woman born in 1971, was convicted in 2009 by Helsinki District Court of defamation and fined because she had expressed her concern in a telephone conversation with a social worker that the father of her daughter, born in 2004, might have sexually abused the child. In 2011 The Helsinki Court of Appeal rejected her appeal and upheld the District Court’s judgment. The courts declared that it was irrelevant that her allegations had been made to a public official who was bound by confidentiality. The applicant was also fined and ordered to pay compensation and legal fees. The applicant argued that the judgment violated her freedom of expression.

The ECHR agrees with the applicant that her freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was violated. The ECHR also noted that the intervention was ordained by law with the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. The ECHR ruled however that the judgment in the case had not struck a reasonable balance between the various interests.

The ECHR declared that in weighing two important interests – the need to protect a child from abuse by a parent and the need to protect parents from unfounded violation of their right to privacy and family life – attention must be paid to the particular right to state protection held by children and others in a vulnerable position. Because of the seriousness of child abuse as a societal problem, it is essential that requires a person acting in good faith in the interest of a child need not fear judicial ramifications for expressing concerns to a health or social worker. The ECHR ruled that it was relevant that she had made her allegations to a public official who was bound by confidentiality.

The ECHR also drew attention to the designated sanctions. The Court decreed that the applicant’s fine was a disproportionate consequence of her exercising her freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in raising her concern about possible abuse of her child. Although they were meaningful, the domestic courts’ reasons did not suffice to show that the interference with her freedom of expression had been necessary.

The Court ordered the state to pay the applicant pecuniary damages of 8,001.96 euros as well as an appropriate reimbursement of 5,000 euros in non-pecuniary damages and 6,000 euros for legal costs and expenses.

Additional information: Legal Officer Mia Spolander, Unit for Human Rights Courts and Conventions, tel. +358 295 35 11 76

The Foreign Ministry's email addresses are of the format [email protected]