Public persons or political figures
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 18. The relevant provisions of the Icelandic Constitution ( Stjórnarskrá lýðveldisins Íslands ) reads as follows: Article 71 “Everyone shall enjoy freedom from interference with privacy, home and family life. ... Notwithstanding the provision of the first paragraph above, freedom from interference with privacy, home and family life may be otherwise limited by statutory provisions if this is urgently necessary for the protection of the rights of others.” 19. The Penal Code No. 19/1940 ( Almenn hegningarlög ), Chapter XXV, entitled “Defamation of character and violations of privacy”, sets out the following relevant provisions: Article 194 “Any person who has sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with a person by means of using violence, threats or other unlawful coercion shall be guilty of rape and shall be imprisoned for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 16 years. ‘ Violence ’ here refers to the deprivation of independence by means of confinement, drugs or other comparable means.” Article 235 “If a person alleges against another person anything that might be harmful to his or her honour or spreads such allegations, he shall be subject to fines or to imprisonment for up to one year.” Article 236 “Anyone who, against his or her better knowledge, makes or disseminates a defamatory insinuation shall be liable to up to two years ’ imprisonment. Where such an insinuation is published or disseminated publicly, even though the person publishing or disseminating it has no reason to believe it to be correct, the sentence shall be a fine or up to two years ’ imprisonment.” Article 241 “In a defamation action, defamatory remarks may be declared null and void at the demand of the injured party. A person who is found guilty of a defamatory allegation may be ordered to pay to the injured person, on the latter ’ s demand, a reasonable amount to cover the cost of the publication of a judgment, its main contents or reasoning, as circumstances may warrant in one or more public newspapers or publications.” Article 242 “ The offences referred to in the present Chapter shall be subject to indictment as follows: ... 3. Lawsuits on account of other offences may be brought by the injured party alone. ” 20. Section 26(1) of the Tort Liability Act No. 50/1993 ( Skaðabótalög ) reads: “A person who a. deliberately or through gross negligence causes physical injury or b. is responsible for an unlawful injury against the freedom, peace, honour or person of another party may be ordered to pay non-pecuniary damages to the injured party.” 21. Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 88/2008 ( Lög um meðferð sakamála ) reads: “When the prosecutor has received all the evidence in the case and made sure that the investigation has been completed, he/she examines whether or not the defendant should be indicted or not. If the prosecutor feels that what has already been gathered is not sufficient or likely to lead to a conviction, he/she takes no further action, but otherwise he/she initiates a criminal case against the defendant, according to Article 152, cf. however Article 146.” THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 22. The applicant alleged that the Supreme Court judgment of 20 November 2014 entailed a violation of his right to respect for his private life as provided in Article 8 of the Convention. The relevant parts read as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life... 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 23. The Government contested that argument. A. Admissibility 24. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties ’ submissions (a) The applicant 25. The applicant maintained that when X published the altered picture with the caption “ Fuck you rapist bastard” he had been accusing the applicant of raping a specific person, even though X had known that the case against him had been dismissed by the prosecutor. In the applicant´s opinion this was a factual statement about him being a rapist which could have been proven. 26. The applicant submitted that it had been established that X had published the picture and the statement, in English, and made them accessible to over 100 million Instagram subscribers. Consequently, the picture had been published in the Icelandic media. The picture had given the impression that the person in the picture (the applicant) was a rapist. 27. The applicant further argued that the conclusion of the Supreme Court had entailed that the applicant could be called a rapist without having been charged with or convicted of such a crime, and without being able to defend himself. This was a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. (b) The Government 28. Firstly, the Government pointed out that the facts of the current case differed from cases concerning the media publishing information about individuals and therefore the Court ’ s principles in cases concerning the media could not be applied in the same way in the current case. Thus, for example, the criteria of the method of obtaining the information and its veracity did not apply in the present case. The information had been disseminated by one individual expressing a personal value judgment about the applicant and it had not been intended for the general public. 29. In the Government ’ s opinion, the domestic courts applied standards that were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 8 of the Convention as interpreted in the Court ’ s case - law. The balancing test - between the competing rights protected under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention - was based on principles developed in the Court ’ s case - law. The domestic courts enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation in their assessment. The role of the Court should be in line with the principle of subsidiarity and the Court should only intervene where the domestic courts had considered irrelevant factors to be significant or where the conclusion reached had been clearly arbitrary or summarily dismissive of the interests at stake. The domestic courts were granted a wider margin in respect of positive obligations in relation to private parties where opinions within democratic society might differ significantly. 30. The Government noted that the domestic courts had analysed the material as a whole and concluded that the statement had been a value judgment. The topic, the justice system ’ s handling of sexual violence, was a debate of general interest and the applicant ’ s case had been high - profile. The applicant had been a well-known person in Iceland, with a clear incentive to maintain his place in popular culture, something he did by promoting his alter ego, often stirring up debates with controversial comments about women or minority groups. He had been aware that his methods were controversial and he had had long - standing public feuds with other well-known persons. He had made strongly - worded statements and declarations in the media while the investigation was ongoing. The material had been distributed by an ordinary person expressing a value judgment on a burning social topic at the time. 2. The Court ’ s assessment 31. The Court notes that the present case requires an examination of whether a fair balance has been struck between the applicant ’ s right to the protection of his private life under Article 8 of the Convention and the other party ’ s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10. It therefore considers it useful to reiterate the relevant general principles. (a) General principles 32. The notion of “private life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which extends to a number of aspects relating to personal identity, such as a person ’ s name or image, and furthermore includes a person ’ s physical and psychological integrity ( see Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, § 50, ECHR 2004 ‑ VI, with further references). 33. Furthermore, it has been accepted by the Court that a person ’ s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as part of the right to respect for private life. The Court has also concluded that a person ’ s reputation is part of their personal identity and moral integrity, which are a matter of private life even if the person is criticised in a public debate (see Pfeifer v. Austria, no. 12556/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 ‑ XII, and Petrie v. Italy, no. 25322/12, § 39, 18 May 2017 ). The same considerations apply to a person ’ s honour ( A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009, and Sanchez Cardenas v. Norway, no. 12148/03, § 38, 4 October 2007). 34. However, in order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and must have been carried out in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see, inter alia, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012, Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 137, ECHR 2015, and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 76, 27 June 2017 ). 35. The Court notes that in cases such as the present one, it is for the Court to determine whether the State, in fulfilling its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, has struck a fair balance between the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life and the right of the opposing party to freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the Convention. Moreover, paragraph 2 of Article 10 recognises that freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions necessary to protect the rights and reputation of others. 36. The Court also points out that the choice of the means to secure compliance with Article 8 in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves is in principle a matter that falls within the Contracting States ’ margin of appreciation. In this connection, there are different ways of ensuring “respect for private life”, and the nature of the State ’ s obligation will depend on the particular aspect of private life that is at issue. Similarly, under Article 10 of the Convention, Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity and extent of an interference with the freedom of expression protected by the Convention. However, this margin goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those delivered by an independent court. In exercising its supervisory function, the Court ’ s task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see, inter alia, Petrie v. Italy, cited above, § 40 - 41, with further references). 37. In cases which require the right to respect for private life to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression, the Court considers that the outcome of the application should not, in theory, vary according to whether it has been lodged with the Court under Article 8 of the Convention or under Article 10. Indeed, as a matter of principle these rights deserve equal respect. Accordingly, the margin of appreciation should in theory be the same in both cases ( Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 91, ECHR 2015 (extracts) ). 38. Where the national authorities have weighed up the interests at stake in compliance with the criteria laid down in the Court ’ s case-law, strong reasons are required if it is to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts ( Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 54, ECHR 2016, with further references). 39. Relevant criteria for balancing the right to respect for private life against the right to freedom of expression may be : the contribution to a debate of general interest; how well-known is the person concerned and what is the subject of the report; his or her prior conduct; the method of obtaining the information and its veracity; the content, form and consequences of the publication; and the severity of the sanctions imposed (see, for example, Axel Springer AG v. Germany, cited above, § 89-9 5, and Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2), cited above, § 108-113). 40. Lastly the Court points out that, in order to assess the justification for an impugned statement, a distinction needs to be made between statements of fact and value judgments. While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10. The classification of a statement as a fact or as a value judgment is a matter which in the first place falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities, in particular the domestic courts. However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, there must exist a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it will be excessive ( see Do Carmo de Portugal e Castro Câmara v. Portugal, no. 53139/11, § 31, 4 October 2016 and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, 17 December 2004 ). (b) Application of those principles to the present case 41. The present complaint concerns an altered picture of the applicant which was published by X on an open Instagram account along with the caption “ Fuck you rapist bastard”. X had used a front page picture which had been published along with an interview with the applicant in an Icelandic magazine, Monitor, the same day. 42. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers it appropriate to consider the following applicable criteria, in this specific order: how well-known is the person concerned, the subject matter of the statement and the prior conduct of the person concerned; the contribution to a debate of general interest and the content, form and consequences of the publication, including the method of obtaining the information and its veracity. (i) How well - known was the applicant, the subject matter and the applicant ’ s conduct prior to the publication of the impugned statement 43. As noted above, the subject matter at issue was an altered picture of the applicant published on X ’ s Instagram account along with the caption “Fuck you rapist bastard”, shortly after two rape charges against the applicant had been dropped. The domestic courts, in their judgments, gave a detailed account about the applicant being a well-known person, and his prior conduct. They described his professional activities, inter alia, his online writing, publication of books, appearances on television and his way of presenting himself in the media. The courts noted that his views had attracted attention and controversy, including his attitudes towards women and their sexual freedom, and that he had participated in and explained his views in public discussions. Furthermore, the complaints against the applicant about sexual violence had led to public discussions in which he had participated. 44. In the light of the domestic courts ’ findings, the Court agrees that the limits to acceptable criticism must accordingly be wider in the present case than in the case of an individual who is not well-known ( see, inter alia, Erla Hlynsdόttir v. Iceland, no. 43380/10, § 65, 10 July 2012, with further references). However, “while reporting on true facts about politicians or other public persons ’ private life may be admissible in certain circumstances, even persons known to the public have legitimate expectations of protection of, and respect for, their private life ” ( see Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05, § 53, 4 June 2009 ). (ii) Contribution to a debate of general interest 45. The domestic courts concluded that the publication of the picture had been a part of general public debate in the light of the fact that the applicant was a well-known person in Iceland and had participated in public discussions about his professional activities and the complaints against him of sexual violence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated: “ When the [applicant] appeared in the aforementioned newspaper interview and employed provocative, if not derogatory, comments about others, including the girl who had accused him of sexual violence, he launched a public debate and should, moreover, have known that his comments would result in strong reactions from those who strongly disliked his abovementioned views ”. The Court agrees with the domestic courts that, in the light of the fact that the applicant was a well-known person and the impugned statement was a part of a debate concerning accusations of a serious criminal act, it was an issue of general interest. The Court will now examine whether, due to the content, form and consequences of the impugned publication the national courts struck a fair balance between the applicant ’ s rights under Article 8 of the Convention and X ’ s rights under Article 10. (iii) Content, form and consequences of the impugned publication 46. The Supreme Court, in its judgment of 20 November 2014, stated that the altered picture along with the caption had been accessible not only to X ’ s followers on Instagram, but to other users of the medium as well. The court concluded that, either way, it had been made available publicly and therefore came under Article 236 of the Penal Code. The Court sees no reason to disagree with the Supreme Court ’ s assessment on this point. In that respect the Court deems important to recall its previous case-law where it has recognised that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public ’ s access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general. At the same time, the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, particularly the right to respect for private life, is certainly higher than that posed by the press (see, inter alia, Delfi AS v. Estonia, § 133, cited above).” 47. The crux of the matter before the domestic courts was whether or not the statement “Fuck you rapist bastard” had been a statement of fact or a value judgment. The majority of the Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated: “Although it can be agreed that by using the term ‘ rapist ’ about a named person, that person is being accused of committing rape, account must be taken of the context in which the term is set, cf. the ruling of the Supreme Court on 29 January 2009 in Case No 321/2008. If the altered picture and the comment ‘ Fuck you rapist bastard ’ are taken as a whole – as the parties agree should be the case – the Supreme Court agrees with the District Court that this was a case of invective on the part of [X] against the [applicant] in a ruthless public debate, which the latter, as stated previously, had instigated. It was therefore a value judgment about the [applicant] and not a factual statement that he was guilty of committing rape. In this context, it makes a difference, even though this alone is not decisive for the conclusion, that [X] did not maintain that the [applicant] had thus committed a criminal offence against someone else, named or unnamed” (see paragraph 16 above). 48. The Court reiterates that the classification of a statement as a fact or as a value judgment is a matter which in the first place falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities, in particular the domestic courts. The Court may, however, consider it necessary to make its own assessment of the impugned statements ( see, for example, Brosa v. Germany, no. 5709/09, 17 April 2014, §§ 43-50).” 49. The Court notes at the outset that the Supreme Court in fact accepted that by using the term “ rapist ” about a named person, that person was being accused of committing rape. However, the Supreme Court considered that the statement in question was to be classified as a value judgment when viewed in “ context ” (see paragraph 16 above). The question before the Court is therefore whether, viewed as a whole and in context, as is required by the case-law of the Court (see, for example, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999 - IV), the findings of the Supreme Court were within its margin of factual appreciation that must be afforded to the national courts as to the classification of the statement (see Arnarson v Iceland, no. 58781/13, § 45, 13 June 2017 ). 50. At the outset, the Court notes that the term “ rapist ” is objective and factual in nature. It directly refers to a person who has committed the act of rape, which is criminalised under the Icelandic Penal Code (see paragraph 18 above). The veracity of an allegation of rape can therefore be proven. It follows that, viewed on its face, the statement “ Fuck you rapist bastard ” included a statement of fact as it clearly assigns the status of “ rapist ” to the person who is the subject of the statement. Although the Court does not exclude the possibility that an objective statement of fact, such as the one impugned in the present case, can, contextually, be classified as a value judgment the contextual elements justifying such a conclusion must be convincing in the light of the objective and factual nature of the term “ rapist ” taken at face value. (see, a contrario, for example, Karman v Russia, no. 29372/02, 14 December 2006, § 41, and Brosa, cited above, §§ 43-50).” 51. In this regard, the Court considers it crucial that when describing the context of the statement in question, the Supreme Court relied primarily on the applicant ’ s participation in a “ ruthless debate ” which he had “ instigated ”. The Supreme Court failed to take adequate account of the important chronological link between the publication of the statement on 22 November 2012 and the discontinuance of the criminal cases of alleged rape against the applicant, the second only a week before, on 15 November 2012, both cases being the subject matter of the magazine interview on 22 November 2012 which prompted X to publish his statement. In other words, although the Court has no reason to call into question the Supreme Court ’ s findings that the statement was a part of a “ ruthless public debate ” prompted by the applicant ’ s behaviour and public persona, the factual context in which the statement was made, and its allegation that the applicant was a “ rapist ”, was the criminal proceedings in which the applicant had been accused of the very same criminal act to which the statement referred, proceedings which had been discontinued by the public prosecutor for lack of evidence (see paragraph 6 above). 52. In light of the above, and in particular the objective and factual nature of the term “ rapist“, when viewed on its face, the Court finds that the contextual assessment made by the Supreme Court did not adequately take account of relevant and sufficient elements so as to justify the conclusion that the statement constituted a value judgment. However, even assuming that the Court were to accept the Supreme Court ’ s classification of the statement “rapist” as a value judgment, the Court recalls that under its settled case-law (see paragraph 40 above), even where a statement amounts to a value judgment there must exist a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it will be excessive. In the light of the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicant just prior to the publication of the applicant ’ s newspaper interview, the Supreme Court failed to explain sufficiently the factual basis that could have justified assessing the use of the term “rapist” as a value judgment, the Supreme Court merely referring, as previously mentioned, to the applicant ’ s participation in a “ruthless public debate” which he had “instigated” when he gave the interview in question. In short, Article 8 of the Convention must be interpreted to mean that persons, even disputed public persons that have instigated a heated debate due to their behaviour and public comments, do not have to tolerate being publicly accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being supported by facts. The Court therefore finds that the statement was of a serious nature and capable of damaging the applicant ’ s reputation. It reached such a level of seriousness as to cause prejudice to the applicant ’ s enjoyment of the right to respect for private life for Article 8 to come into play (see, inter alia, A v. Norway, cited above, § 64). (iv ) Conclusion 53. In the light of the above-mentioned considerations the Court finds that the domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant ’ s right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention and X ’ s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. The Court therefore finds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 54. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 55. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 56. The Government argued that the finding of a violation by the Court would in itself constitute just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage claimed. However, if the Court were to find it appropriate to award the applicant non-pecuniary damages, the amount should be reduced significantly. 57. The Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage that may have been sustained by the applicant. B. Costs and expenses 58. The applicant also claimed EUR 28,200 (ISK 3,413,640) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 9,190 ( ISK 1,112,280) for those incurred before the Court. The above amounts included value added tax (“VAT”). 59. The Government left it to the Court to decide the appropriate amount of costs to be reimbursed. 60. According to the Court ’ s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 10.000 in respect of cost and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 7,500 for those incurred before the Court. C. Default interest 61. The Court has taken note of the applicant ’ s invitation to apply default interest to its Article 41 award “equal to the monthly applicable interest rate published by the Central Bank of Iceland ... until settlement”, that should run from 20 November 2014, the date of the Supreme Court ’ s judgment and that the interest should run from the date when the present judgement has become final. 62. However, the Court is of the view that the applicant ’ s interest in the value of the present award being preserved has been sufficiently taken into account in its assessment above and in point 3(b) of the operative part below. In accordance with its standard practice, the Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention finding that, overall, the domestic courts had not struck a fair balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 and the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention of the person who had posted the remark. It considered in particular that the domestic courts had not taken sufficient account of the fact that the remarks, notably the word “rapist”, had been posted just a week after prosecutors had discontinued sexual offence proceedings against the applicant. The courts had further not provided a sufficient explanation in the context of the case for their justification for finding that the word “rapist” could be used as a value judgment. The Court also underlined that Article 8 of the Convention had to be interpreted to mean that even public persons who had begun a heated debate did not have to tolerate being accused of violent criminal acts without such statements being supported by facts.