issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 251 (2011)  
22.11.2011  
Finding a journalist guilty of defaming an ex-prime minister,  
who had been dead for 30 years, breached the Convention  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case John Anthony Mizzi v. Malta (application  
no. 17320/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a  
majority, that there had been:  
A violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) of the European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
The case concerned a journalist’s complaint that he had been found guilty of defaming  
Sir Paul Boffa, a former Prime Minister of Malta, who had died more than 30 years  
earlier.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, John Anthony Mizzi, is a Maltese national who was born in 1925 and lives  
in Malta (Malta).  
In February 1994, The Sunday Times of Malta, a national English-language newspaper,  
published the applicant’s letter to the editor 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. The article also discussed briefly the history behind the  
project. It 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 Mr Mizzi for  
defamation in civil proceedings asking for damages. He argued that the statement that  
his father had wanted to build in the bay attributed false and despicable intentions to his  
father.  
The Civil Court found that the letter had been defamatory concerning Sir Paul Boffa as it  
implied that he had taken advantage of his position as head of the civil administration to  
build in an area for which planning permission had not been granted previously. The  
court ordered Mr Mizzi to pay 700 euros (EUR) in damages to Sir Boffa’s son. The  
judgment was upheld on appeal. Further court proceedings brought by Mr Mizzi seeking  
constitutional redress were concluded by the court dismissing his claim.  
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month  
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 10, Mr Mizzi complained that the Maltese courts’ judgments, finding  
him guilty of defamation and ordering him to pay civil damages, breached his right to  
freedom of expression.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 March 2010.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:  
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President,  
Lech Garlicki (Poland),  
Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),  
George Nicolaou (Cyprus),  
Ledi Bianku (Albania),  
Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges,  
David Scicluna (Malta), ad hoc Judge,  
and also Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Freedom of expression (Article 10)  
It was common ground between the parties that the judgments pronounced in the  
defamation action against Mr Mizzi had interfered with his right to freedom of  
expression. The interference had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the  
legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, as required by Article 10.  
Examining whether the domestic courts’ findings had been “necessary in a democratic  
society”, which was the final requirement for a measure to be compatible with the  
Convention standards under Article 10, the Court noted that the Maltese courts had  
interpreted Mr Mizzi’s statement concerning Dr Boffa as meaning that the Prime Minister  
at the time had wanted to build in the area for himself.  
While it was true that Mr Mizzi could have phrased his statement in a more careful  
manner, that meaning was only one of two possible interpretations of the statement.  
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 Mr Mizzi and had not  
examined whether he had acted in good fact.  
In particular, his statement had to be considered in the light of the overall focus of his  
letter. 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, while Sir Boffa’s son had had the right to bring an action for defamation, Sir  
Boffa himself had died more than three decades before the article had been published.  
Thus the damage which the statement might have caused to his reputation had not been  
serious. The fact that the proceedings had been civil, as opposed to criminal, and that Mr  
2
Mizzi had been sentenced to pay a relatively small fine, had not affected the conclusion  
that the standards applied by the Maltese courts had not been compatible with those of  
Article 10.  
There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 10.  
Other articles  
As regards Mr Mizzi’s complaint under Article 6 § 3, namely that he could not  
cross-examine his accuser because he had died, the Court noted that Article 6 was not  
applicable to that complaint as the proceedings in question had not concerned the  
determination of any criminal charge against the applicant. Even viewed against the  
general fairness requirements of Article 6 § 1, the Court found that Mr Mizzi had not  
been denied a fair trial.  
Just satisfaction (Article 41)  
The Court held that Malta was to pay Mr Mizzi EUR 700 in respect of pecuniary damage,  
EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,300 for costs and expenses.  
Separate opinion  
Judge Scicluna expressed a dissenting opinion the text of which is annexed to the  
judgment.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on  
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s  
RSS feeds.  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Petra Leppee Fraize (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 07)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
3