“This is not the case that only the defendant, Tomasz Grodecki, holds the view that the actions taken to take over public media, including PAP, were unlawful. In this context, it should also be emphasized that after the decision to liquidate PAP, the liquidator himself publicly stated that the owner’s intention was not to cease the agency’s operations. These words themselves contradict that decision. The essential feature of liquidating a company is the cessation of its activity,” said Judge Tomasz Gal of the Regional Court, dismissing the civil lawsuit filed by neo-PAP against our journalist, Tomasz Grodecki.
Today, the Regional Court in Warsaw fully dismissed the civil claim brought against our journalist, Tomasz Grodecki, by the liquidator of the Polish Press Agency, Marek Błoński. The case concerned statements in which Grodecki critically assessed, among other things, what he described as the unlawful takeover of state media.
In the oral justification of the ruling, Judge Tomasz Gal emphasized that “the court did not share the claimant’s view that the claims were justified, and the lawsuit has been dismissed in its entirety.”
“The claimant sought legal protection of personal rights in connection with statements by the defendant which attributed disinformation to the claimant [the Polish Press Agency – ed.] regarding statements by the U.S. President, Donald Trump, alleged links between the claimant’s employees and Russia due to education or employment there, suggested that such links influenced the way professional duties were performed, accused the claimant of a lack of reliability, and alleged the illegality of the claimant’s management’s appointment, as well as attributing to the claimant a readiness to work for the current government,” the judge explained.
According to the court, the defendant’s statements attributing links between the claimant’s employees and Russia cannot be deemed unlawful, because in this respect the defendant presented information consistent with the truth. The claimant did not dispute that some employees had received education in Russia or had worked there. “Providing truthful information is not unlawful conduct,” Judge Tomasz Gal stressed.
The judge also indicated that “statements by the defendant attributing to the claimant a readiness to work for the current government” are consistent with the truth, in light of Article 1 of the Act on the Polish Press Agency, which states that “this entity is a public press agency obliged to publish the positions of the main legislative and executive authorities, including the Council of Ministers.”
“It can be said that this is an institution—in the positive sense of the word—that performs a service function toward other state bodies within the scope of PAP’s activity, and working for the government, any government, cannot be regarded as conduct that could objectively damage its good name. Such cooperation, or useful work for a given government, is essentially the function of the claimant,” added Judge Gal.
With regard to the remaining statements by Tomasz Grodecki, the court found that they were evaluative in nature and “constituted the exercise of the defendant’s right to freedom of expression, including on matters of public or political life.”
“For this reason, they cannot serve as a basis for attributing legal liability to the defendant. In the court’s view, the defendant also cannot be accused of abusing his right to freedom of expression in pointing to the alleged illegality of changes at PAP following the change in executive and legislative power at the end of 2023. The court established that after PAP was placed into liquidation, the legality of this decision has been—and continues to be—questioned in the public sphere not only by the defendant but also by many other individuals and entities. It is a matter of public dispute. This liquidation is regarded by part of the public as an example of the instrumentalization of law, that is, the use of a fundamental legal mechanism for purposes entirely contrary to its assumptions. According to these views, personnel changes at PAP were unlawful. In this respect, it is difficult to accuse the defendant of participating in public discourse and expressing his views on the matter,” Judge Tomasz Gal explained.
The court emphasized that “the right to freedom of expression is also the right to criticism, particularly criticism of public institutions,” including PAP.
“Statements about such entities are evaluative, but above all they may be critical—that is precisely what freedom of expression entails. If it were limited only to positive assessments, that freedom would be purely illusory. The defendant cannot be deemed to have acted unlawfully as a participant in public discourse. It is not the case that only the defendant holds the view that actions taken to take over public media, including PAP, were unlawful. It should also be emphasized that after the decision to liquidate PAP, the liquidator himself publicly stated that the owner’s intention was not to cease the agency’s operations. These words themselves contradict that decision. The essential feature of liquidation is the cessation of activity. It is therefore unsurprising that the defendant presents such an assessment, as it is rooted in facts. One may disagree with that assessment, (…) but formulating such opinions is entirely permissible. There is no obligation to agree with PAP’s position—the defendant has the right to think differently,” the judge concluded.