MaltaToday columnist wins case at European Court of Human Rights

Former PN Minister Michael Falzon has won a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, after his right to freedom of expression was breached when courts found him guilty of defaming Labour MP Michael Falzon.

The case revolves around an opinion piece penned by Falzon in 2007. In his regular MaltaToday column, Falzon referred to a statement made by the Labour MP with his namesake (referred to as MF) over a story that appeared in Illum, which reported how the PL deputy leader had received a threatening anonymous email and reported it to the police.

MF had sued Falzon and MaltaToday editor Saviour Balzan and won both cases. The accused lost the appeal and took the issue to the constitutional court. However, Falzon and Balzan lost their case in the country's highest court, a decision confirmed also on appeal.

Falzon decided to pursue the matter at the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the courts in Malta breached his fundamental human rights.

Falzon won the case and was awarded damages. 

The initial Case

On 6 May 2007, MF, then a deputy leader of the Malta Labour Party, said that he had received an anonymous email and threatening letters, which he had forwarded to the Police Commissioner. MF publicly spoke of the matter following revelations in the newspaper Illum published on the same day. The newspaper had said an admirer of MF was questioned by the police.

Later, on 13 May 2007, MaltaToday opinion writer and former minister Michael Falzon published an opinion piece titled “Policing one’s enemies”, prompted by MF’s speech. Falzon questioned the manner in which the two main political parties perceived the police force.

“I say this with deep regret, but I can only be seriously perturbed by the ease with which MLP Deputy Leader Michael Falzon persuaded the Commissioner of Police to investigate the source of a trivial and unimportant anonymous e-mail that he had received. More so, when this e-mail could only have been misguidedly considered ‘suspicious’, and even then in an absolutely far-fetched way, in the context of the infighting and internal feuds within the MLP,” Falzon wrote in his opinion piece.

 “So what is the Government doing about this? Does the MLP Deputy Leader who happens to be my namesake, carry more weight and influence with the Commissioner of Police than the Deputy Prime Minister who is politically responsible for the Police Force?”

This opinion piece led MF to file libel proceedings against Falzon and MaltaToday editor Saviour Balzan, and sought damages, claiming that the article was defamatory.

Although Falzon claimed that the published article had contained his opinion, and thus contained a fair comment based on true facts, the court found him guilty of defaming the MLP deputy leader and was ordered to pay €2,500  in damages. Balzan was also ordered to pay €1,000 in damages. The two appealed, yet this was also dismissed.

In March 2011, Falzon and Balzan took the issue to the constitutional court, arguing that the opinion piece had consisted of criticism, which was a legitimate manner of expressing an opinion about the work of a public figure.

In March 2012, the constitutional court dismissed the applicants' claim. This decision was confirmed on appeal in January 2013.

European Court of Human Rights

Falzon decided to pursue the matter at the European Court of Human Rights, where he complained that the domestic courts had failed to distinguish between facts and value judgements.

Falzon said that his criticism was further directed towards a politician and concerned an issue of general interest.

He argued that the article had not been offensive, shocking or disturbing but that it had simply been a political analysis of the speech delivered by MF at his party’s political rally.

The court considered that in the defamation proceedings the domestic courts were not balanced in their decision, and did not give any reason as to why MF's right to protect his reputation outweighed Falzon's right to freedom of expression.

The European court thus declared Falzon’s application as admissible, and held the domestic courts in violation of Article 10.

The ECHR ordered the State to pay Falzon €2,500 plus tax for pecuniary damage, €4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €6,340 for costs and expenses.

Falzon was represented by Dr Therese Comodini Cachia, while the Maltese government was represented by Attorney General Peter Grech.