NISKASAARI AND OTAVAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND JUDGMENT 7 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” 31. The Government contested that submission. A. Admissibility 32. The Court is satisfied that this complaint raises arguable issues of fact and law under Article 10 of the Convention, so that it cannot be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further considers that the complaint is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The applicant 33. The applicants claimed that the sanctions imposed on them had not been proportionate or reasonable in relation to the criticism the first applicant had expressed in spring 2002. The first applicant had had to pay a fine of EUR 240 and the applicant company about EUR 32,000 for the complainant’s legal costs and EUR 20,000 under the head of its own legal costs. The first applicant had extensive knowledge of environmental issues, whereas the complainant did not. The first applicant’s criticism had concerned certain television programmes broadcast on public-service television. The targets of his criticism had thus been common and social interests which had traditionally been considered to fall within the sphere of freedom of expression. It was unlikely that anyone in Finland would deem such criticism to have been intended simply for arousing people’s curiosity. 34. According to the applicants, in its judgment the Appeal Court had not addressed in any way either this issue or Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. Instead, the Appeal Court had stated that no-one was permitted to defame another or to spread false information, but no mention had been made of the necessity to be shown for any restriction on freedom of expression. In its judgment the Appeal Court had dismissed the charges against the editor-in-chief, inter alia, as he had had grounds to consider that the factual content of the article had been correct and he had checked the facts with an attorney familiar with environmental law. It was difficult to