Previous 1 / 8 Next

II CSKP 1060/22 WYROK W IMIENIU RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ 26 kwietnia 2023 r. Sąd Najwyższy w Izbie Cywilnej w składzie: SSN Marcin Krajewski (przewodniczący) SSN Paweł Księżak (sprawozdawca) SSN Marcin Łochowski po rozpoznaniu na posiedzeniu niejawnym 26 kwietnia 2023 r. w Warszawie, skargi kasacyjnej X. X. od wyroku Sądu Apelacyjnego w Warszawie z 29 września 2020 r., V ACa 61/20, w sprawie z powództwa Y. Y. przeciwko X. X. o ochronę dóbr osobistych, 1. oddala skargę kasacyjną; 2. zasądza od X. X. na rzecz Y. Y. 2160 złotych zwrotu kosztów postępowania kasacyjnego. UZASADNIENIE Y. Y. pozwem skierowanym przeciwko X. X. wniosła o nakazanie pozwanemu dopełnienia czynności potrzebnych do usunięcia skutków naruszenia dóbr

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

The case of a controversial statement about a politician posted on a web portal and a blog

Case Law

Country

Poland

Country Location

Latitude: 52.410002208286514

Longitude: 19.49853336811064

Country Location (linked Case Law): Poland

Decision Date: 26 de abr. de 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Admissible

Keywords

Defamation / Reputation
Digital Rights
Social Media

Judicial Body: Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

Court Name: Polish Supreme Court

Case Number: II CSKP 1060/22

Case Summary: The Polish Supreme Court confirmed a lower court’s ruling that although criticism of public figures can be harsher than that of others, such criticism must also be within certain limits. A politician had posted critical statements about another politician on his blog which had led to a claim that the statements infringed the politician’s honor. The Court said that assessing whether the limit has been crossed in a particular case is very much tied to the specific context, so the use of previous case law is of limited applicability and that there is no such thing as a catalog of words and phrases that can be applied mechanically in assessing the limits of acceptable criticism. The Court acknowledged that assessing whether there has been an illegal violation of personal interests in a given case leaves room for broad discretionary power, which limits the scope of an appellate court overturning a lower court decision unless there were obvious errors in an earlier decision.

Case Significance: The Supreme Court acknowledged that public officials may be expected to accept harsher public criticism than ordinary citizens, but emphasized that even this criticism has permissible limits and that public officials still can protect their reputation and honor.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 19 de jul. de 2024

Primary Documents

Judgment (Polish)
Polish
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

The case of a controversial statement about a politician posted on a web portal and a blog

Primary Documents

Notifications