Maltese national awarded €10,000 by European Court in freedom of expression case

The European Court of Human Rights found a Maltese citizen's right to freedom of expression and information had been breached, when a Maltese court found him guilty of libel in a letter he wrote that was published in the Sunday Times of Malta.

The Court held that Malta is to pay the applicant, journalist John Mizzi, €10,000 after the courts interpreted a letter he wrote as being "malicious" towards Sir Paul Boffa and found him guilty of defaming the former Prime Minister of Malta, who had died more than 30 years earlier.

Mizzi, 86, wrote a letter to the Sunday Times back in February 1994 in which he commented on the authorities' plans to build a yacht marina in the inner part of St Paul's bay. In particular, he expressed concern that the neighbouring seaside-village residents had not been consulted about the project.

Discussing briefly the history behind the project, Mizzi suggested, among other things, that after World War II and during the time when Sir Paul Boffa was a Prime Minister of Malta, permission was given to build on the bay "because Dr Boffa wanted to build there."

As a result of that letter, the son and heir of the late Sir Boffa sued Mizzi for defamation, and the Civil Court found that the letter had been defamatory concerning Sir Paul Boffa, because it implied that he had taken advantage of his position, ordering Mizzi to pay €700 in damages to Boffa's son.

The judgment was upheld on appeal, and subsequently the Constitutional Court dismissed his claim.

Examining whether the Maltese courts' findings had been "necessary in a democratic society", the European Court of Human Rights noted that Mizzi could have phrased his statement in a more careful manner.

However, even if the interpretation of the domestic courts were accepted, the Court found that the Maltese courts had presumed the malicious intent on the part of Mizzi and had not examined whether he had acted in good fact.

"The part about Sir Boffa had in fact been a mere historic detail in an article which had dealt with an entirely different subject. It had only been mentioned in passing and held no significance for the point the article had raised.

"The tone of the letter, including the part on Sir Boffa, had been written in the calmest of tones and could hardly be considered as provocative or exaggerated in the context.

"Furthermore, the domestic courts had not given any weight to the fact that Sir Boffa had been a prime minister and, therefore, a public figure who had to tolerate broader limits of acceptable criticism. Neither had the courts considered that the article was devoted to a subject of some public interest."

Finally, the Court noted that Sir Boffa had died more than three decades before the article had been published and damage which the statement might have caused to his reputation had not been serious.