6.  The applicant was born in 1980 in Tetovo and lives in Golema Rečica in the municipality of Tetovo in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. He arrived in Switzerland in 1989 via family reunification and was granted a permanent residence permit. 7.  On 1 July 1999 the applicant married a national of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, born in 1978, who arrived in Switzerland in 1990 and who also held a permanent residence permit. The couple has two children, born in 2001 and 2005, who are likewise nationals of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. 8.  After leaving school, the applicant did not undergo professional training, but worked in a variety of jobs, namely as a postman, mailman, plasterer and construction worker, with brief periods of unemployment. 9.  On 13 March 2003 the Zurich District Court convicted the applicant of embezzlement for having sold a rental car to a third person in September 2000 and gave him a suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment. 10.  On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court of the Canton of Zurich convicted the applicant of homicide with indirect intent (Eventualvorsatz) and serious violations of the rules of road traffic. On 4 October 2000, while he was engaged in a car race on a public road with an acquaintance, the applicant, driving at a speed of at least 170 kilometres per hour, lost control of his car and crashed into a lamppost, which caused the death of his passenger. That court took the view that the applicant, by agreeing to engage in the race, had deliberately taken the risk of killing him. It found that the applicant had acted with a high degree of recklessness and sentenced him to five years and three months’ imprisonment. 11.  The applicant’s appeals against this conviction were dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Cassation on 10 December 2005 and by the Federal Supreme Court on 28 March 2006. 12.  On 25 April 2006 the applicant started serving his sentence. 13.  On 30 September 2007 the Hinwil District Office (Statthalteramt) sentenced the applicant to a fine of 120 Swiss Francs (CHF) for the purchase and consumption of marihuana. 14.  On 28 October 2009 the applicant was released on parole after having served two thirds of his sentence. 15.  On 27 July 2009, after having heard the applicant, the Migration Office of the Canton of Zurich revoked the applicant’s permanent residence permit. It found that the conditions for revocation pursuant to, inter alia, Article 63 § 1 lit. a in conjunction with Article 62 lit. b of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals (Ausländergesetz, AuG, see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph 27 below) were met. After considering the circumstances of the case, it concluded that the public interest in the applicant’s removal outweighed his interest in enjoying his family life with his wife and children in Switzerland. It ordered his expulsion pursuant to Article 66 § 1 of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals. 16.  On 30 September 2009 the government (Regierungsrat) of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the applicant’s appeal lodged on 27 August 2009. 17.  On 10 February 2010 the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the applicant’s appeal lodged on 20 October 2009. It considered that the applicant had committed a serious criminal offence, that he was not well integrated in Switzerland despite the length of his stay, that expert prognosis regarding the likelihood that he would reoffend was positive but did not rule out any such risk, that he spoke Albanian and was familiar with the culture in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, where he spent parts of his childhood and which he had visited since. It concluded that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit was proportionate. Moreover, the court noted that the applicant’s wife was a national of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” as well, knew Albanian and the country’s culture, and was not well integrated in Switzerland either. Observing that the couple’s children were five and nine years old and thus of an adaptable age, it concluded that the applicant’s wife and children could reasonably be expected to relocate to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” with him. 18.  On 9 March 2010 the applicant appealed that decision, arguing that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit was disproportionate. 19.  On 27 July 2010 the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It considered that the main criminal offence, of which the applicant was convicted, intentional homicide, was a particularly serious one. While it acknowledged that he had lived in Switzerland for over twenty years, which had thus become the centre of his life, it found that he was neither professionally nor socially integrated. It considered that he had no stable employment, but considerable debts. Both he and his wife and children had benefitted significantly from social welfare. Moreover, the court considered that the applicant could reasonably (re-)integrate in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, considering that he spoke Albanian, was born there and had spent a part of his childhood there and had visited the country since. It observed that the same was true for his wife, who likewise originated from “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, where she spent the first twelve years of her life and still had relatives. She knew Albanian and visited the country annually on holiday. At the same time, she was not well integrated in Switzerland as she did not undergo any professional training after leaving school, had received social welfare as from 2005 and only started to work in 2010. As far as their children were concerned, the court considered that they attended primary school and kindergarten, respectively, and were still of an adaptable age. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the public interest in the applicant’s removal outweighed the applicant’s interest in remaining in Switzerland and enjoying respect for his family life there, also noting that his wife and children had a choice between either following him to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” or remaining in Switzerland and maintaining contact through short but regular visits. 20.  On 16 October 2010 the applicant left Switzerland in compliance with the expulsion order. 21.  On 10 December 2010 the Federal Office for Migration issued an entry ban against the applicant for a period of nine years. 22.  In late 2011 the applicant’s wife and children relocated to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” to live with him. 23.  On 14 May 2013 the Federal Administrative Court, on the applicant’s appeal, reduced the duration of the re-entry ban to seven years due to proportionality considerations. It found that the conditions in Article 67 §§ 2 lit. a and 3 of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals for the issuance of an entry ban for a period of more than five years were met (see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph 26). It considered that the offence committed by the applicant was particularly serious and that he continued to be a serious threat to public order, notwithstanding his mostly good behaviour since the commission of the offence and positive personality development. It noted that the applicant could ask for a temporary suspension of the entry ban for humanitarian or other important reasons (Article 67 § 5 of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals) and that the applicant’s wife, who originated from “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” herself, could visit him there together with their children and also maintain contact by various means of communication. 24.  In August 2015, i.e. after almost four years, the applicant’s wife and children returned to Switzerland to avoid the expiry of their permanent residence permit pursuant to Article 61 § 2 of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals (see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph 27) and because their socioeconomic living conditions in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” were difficult. They live in Zurich.


5.  The applicant, Ms Gabriele Fürst-Pfeifer, is an Austrian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Mödling. She is a psychiatrist and has been registered since the year 2000 as a psychological expert for court proceedings in custody and contact-rights-related disputes and decisions on public care as well as child abuse. Specialised in the psychological examination of children and adolescents, her focus is mainly on custody and contact-rights-related disputes. 6.  The online publication “meinbezirk.at” was published and edited by the “Print” Multimedia Company GmbH, a private company which had its registered office in St. Pölten. 7.  The regional weekly print publication Bezirksblatt, which was sent to every household of the district free, was published and edited by the “Print” Zeitungsverlag GmbH, a private company which had its registered office in Innsbruck. 8.  On 23 December 2008 an article was published in “meinbezirk.at” as well as in the print version of Bezirksblatt, which stated as follows:
“The quality of experts in the spotlight (Gutachterqualität im Visier)
Disclosed: Court Expert for custody proceedings a case for therapy
(Aufgedeckt: NÖ Sorgerechts-Sachverständige selbst ein Therapie-Fall)
Suffering from up-and-down mood swings, panic attacks, suicidal thoughts and hallucinations, together with paranoid ideas – but working as a court-appointed expert. In the last 12 years she has examined over 3.000 married couples in custody‑related disputes. Now it seems, it gets rough for [the applicant] as an expert report about her psychological condition has been disclosed ...
A psychological expert report by Dr. M. was commissioned in 1993 in the course of civil proceedings (action because of an alleged breach of promise of marriage) which unearthed the deficiencies of [the applicant] described above. Moreover, Dr. M. came to the conclusion that the applicant’s impairments were hereditary, as the history of her family showed an accumulation of these impairments. Three years later, the applicant was introduced to the “expert community” at the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court, and her integrity was beyond reproach for a decade – until now.” 9.  The passage was followed by comments by a member of the Green Party, who had made a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Public Prosecutor’s office, the Youth Advocate at the Regional Government of Lower Austria, and the Vice-President of the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court, who was responsible for managing the list of experts at the court. At the end of the article it was mentioned that the applicant was no longer answering her phone and had withdrawn from all her cases. 10.  As a result of the article the applicant was confronted with questions related to it from colleagues and patients, and proceedings were initiated at the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court to clarify whether she was still fit to work as a court-appointed expert. In the course of those proceedings the applicant’s mental status was also set to be examined. 11.  On 14 January 2009 the applicant lodged an action with the St. Pölten Regional Court. She sought damages under section 8a of the Media Act (Mediengesetz) and the publication of the judgment claiming that the article and in particular the passages dealing with the psychological expert report on the applicant had violated her intimate personal sphere and compromised her publicly. However, she did not argue that the expert report had been obtained unlawfully. 12.  On 3 April 2009 the St. Pölten Regional Court (Landesgericht St. Pölten) allowed the applicant’s action, ordered the publisher to pay damages in the amount of 5,000 euros (EUR) and the operative part of the judgment to be published. Furthermore, the publisher was to bear the costs of the proceedings. The court found that an average reader would understand the article as putting the expert opinion from 1993 in direct relation to the applicant’s work as an expert now, thus questioning the quality of her work. The article, that also featured the applicant’s full name and the description of her psychological impairment, touched her intimate personal sphere, since it created a link between her mental state and the quality of her work. However, the information itself did not allow for such a link, especially since the expert opinion dated from 1993 and dealt only with a very specific question in the context of civil proceedings at the time. The incomplete and manipulative content of the article was not able to meet the standards of reporting on matters of fact. Furthermore, the court did not consider that there was a direct link between the contents of the article and the applicant’s public position, given that she mainly worked as an expert in custody cases, which were not usually heard in public. Furthermore, it could be assumed that the applicant, a psychiatrist herself and a medical doctor, was managing her illness well and was able to do her work without any impairments. 13.  The publisher appealed on points of law and fact, as well as against the sentence (Berufung wegen Nichtigkeit, Schuld und Strafe). 14.  Thereupon, on 30 November 2009, the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Wien) heard the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and dismissed the applicant’s action. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the article and the impugned passages giving opinions on the applicant’s mental state affected her intimate personal sphere and were capable of compromising her. However, the content of the article was true, as it only repeated true information that had not been disputed by the applicant. Furthermore, the court did not find the article to be incomplete or manipulative, but sufficiently well-balanced and faithful to the different sides of the story in that it also referred to the fact that the applicant’s integrity had never been questioned in ten years; the court also asked for statements from the Vice-President of the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court, a member of the Green Party, and the Youth Advocate of the Regional Government of Lower Austria. 15.  The Court of Appeal further found that the publication in issue was directly linked to the applicant’s public status. She had been included in the list of experts to be appointed by the courts since the year 2000 and had been appointed in several cases. This regular work as an expert in court proceedings belongs beyond doubt to the public sphere (“...ist zweifellos dem öffentlichen Leben zuzuordnen...”) as she took part in association with the State-organised judiciary and held an important position in connection with the decision-making process of judges. Even though the impugned expert opinion dated from 1993 and concerned a period in the applicant’s life prior even to that date, the reporting in question touched sufficiently upon the present public activities of the applicant. Considering the importance and sensitivity of the area of custody proceedings and the dominant role of experts in the field, the psychological integrity of an expert assigned to those cases had to be beyond doubt. Any reservation in relation to the mental health of experts – if based on sufficient reasons – had to be met with a thorough investigation in the interest of good conduct of the administration of justice, which was what had happened as the next step in the present case. According to the Court of Appeal, the article took up doubts arising from the neurologist opinion in 1993 without denying the applicant’s abilities as an expert in the area. The truthful information in the article and the public interest in the subject matter justified the article’s critical questioning of exactly those abilities. 16.  That judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 17 December 2009. 17.  In the meantime the applicant lodged an action with the Innsbruck Regional Court on 7 April 2009. She sought damages under section 8a of the Media Act (Mediengesetz) and publication of the judgment claiming that the article, and in particular the passages dealing with the psychological expert report on her, violated her intimate personal sphere and compromised her publicly. 18.  On 2 October 2009 the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht Innsbruck) granted the applicant’s action, ordered the publisher to pay damages in the amount of 5,000 euros (EUR) and the publication of the operative part of the judgment. Furthermore, costs were awarded against the publisher. The court found that the average reader would understand the article as stating that the applicant was incapable of being an expert in custody proceedings because of her own mental health impairments in 1993 and that this placed in question the quality of the applicant’s work so far. That the applicant’s psychological illness was directly linked to the intimate personal sphere was beyond doubt. The present article not only mentioned the applicant’s mental health status, but also grossly exaggerated individual symptoms, which was also capable of compromising her. The article was so incomplete and distorted that it could not be considered a report of matters of fact. The Regional Court in particular noted that the article did not mention that the period of examination was even earlier than 1993 and that only certain aspects of the expert opinion had been published, while others had not. Scandalously the article created the impression that the applicant had rendered decisive opinions in custody proceedings for over a decade while herself suffering from the symptoms described above. Furthermore, the publication was not linked in any way to the applicant’s public status (“...steht [...] in keinem unmittelbaren Zusammenhang mit dem öffentlichen Leben der Antragstellerin”). There was no connection between the applicant’s work at present and her mental health status years ago. Her work in the context of custody proceedings was also not conducted in public. 19.  The publisher appealed on points of law and fact, as well as against the sentence (Berufung wegen Nichtigkeit, Schuld und Strafe). 20.  Thereupon, on 11 February 2010, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck) granted the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and dismissed the applicant’s action. In contrast to the Regional Court it found that the average reader would understand from the article at issue that in 1993 an expert opinion was rendered in respect of the applicant that showed the above-mentioned psychological impairments. However, the article also stated that the applicant’s integrity had not been questioned for over a decade. The article, while focusing on the applicant’s work in custody proceedings, gave space to comments from the Youth Advocate of the Regional Government of Lower Austria, a member of the Green Party, and the Vice-President of the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court. The article did not indicate however that the applicant was not competent to exercise her profession as a psychological expert. Furthermore, the published information was true. The fact that only parts of the expert opinion were repeated in the article did not render the article distortive, nor the relevant information untrue. 21.  As regards the connection to the public sphere and public interest, the Court of Appeal found that the State administration, together with the administration of justice, belonged to the public sphere. The applicant had been included in the list of court-commissioned experts since the year 2000, and her repeated work as an expert in court proceedings must be considered as belonging to the public sphere. The activity was closely linked to the administration of justice, and had a considerable influence on judges’ decision-making processes. The impugned article concerned the applicant’s activity as an expert in custody proceedings. Considering the importance and sensitivity of the area of custody proceedings and the dominant role of experts in the field, the psychological integrity of an expert assigned to those cases had to be beyond doubt. Any reservation in relation to the mental health of experts – if based on sufficient reasons – had to be met with a thorough investigation in the interest of the proper administration of justice, which had happened as a next step in the present case. Insofar, a truthful report linked to a person’s public status, which also contained information belonging to the intimate personal sphere must be permitted to be published. The Court of Appeal concluded that the article, by way of an appropriate commentary, critically examined a matter of public interest and therefore exercised its role as a “public watchdog”. 22.  That judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 11 March 2010.


4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Traun. 5.  The applicant was employed as a civil servant of the Traun Municipality (Stadtgemeinde Traun). 6.  On 5 August 2002 the applicant declared to resign from his civil service employment as of 31 August 2002. However, on 29 August 2002 he revoked his declaration. 7.  On 12 September 2002 the mayor of Traun informed the applicant that the Traun City Council (Stadtrat) had not been able to accept his revocation and that his employment as a civil servant had therefore ended on 31 August 2002. 8.  On 26 September 2003 the applicant requested that his employment relationship be declared as still valid. On 11 December 2003 the City Council dismissed the request. 9.  On 30 December 2003 the applicant appealed. On 15 January 2004 he requested that suspensive effect be granted in respect of his appeal. On 18 May 2004 he requested that the City Council declare him entitled to (retroactive) payment of his salary as from 1 September 2002. 10.  On 18 June 2004 the Traun Municipal Council (Gemeinderat) dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicant was not entitled to his salary after 31 August 2002 and rejected his request for suspensive effect of 15 January 2004 as having been filed out of time. 11.  On 8 July 2004 the applicant filed an objection (Vorstellung) against the Municipal Council’s decision of 18 June 2004. On 24 June 2005 the Upper Austria Regional Government (hereinafter, “the Regional Government”) quashed the Municipal Council’s decision in the part rejecting the applicant’s request for suspensive effect of 15 June 2004 (see paragraph 9 above) and referred it back to the lower instance for a new decision. The remainder of the applicant’s objection was dismissed. 12.  On 5 August 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Government’s decision of 24 June 2005. On 25 September 2006 the Constitutional Court declined to examine the complaint and on 15 November 2006, at the applicant’s request, transferred the complaint to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). 13.  On 15 November 2007 the Administrative Court lifted the Regional Government’s decision of 24 June 2005 (see paragraph 11 above) on the ground that it had not heard the applicant in order to assess his credibility. 14.  On 4 March 2008 the Regional Government lifted the Municipal Council’s decision of 18 June 2004 (see paragraph 10 above) and referred the case back to the lower instance for a new decision. 15.  On 3 December 2006 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court about the Municipal Council’s failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) on his request for suspensive effect of 15 January 2004 (see paragraph  9  above). On 31 January 2007 the Administrative Court rejected the complaint because the Municipal Council had not been competent to decide on this issue. 16.  On 25 June 2007 the applicant filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) with the Municipal Council regarding his request of 15 January 2004, claiming that the City Council had failed to render a decision in due time. 17.  On 4 January 2008 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court about the Municipal Council’s failure to decide on his request for suspensive effect. 18.  On 27 June 2008 the Municipal Council dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the City Council’s decision of 11 December 2003 (see paragraph 8 above) and his request for suspensive effect of 15 January 2004 (see paragraph 9 above). Consequently, on 5 September 2008 the Administrative Court closed the proceedings regarding the applicant’s complaint of 4 January 2008 about the Municipal Council’s failure to decide (see paragraph 17 above) and awarded costs to the applicant. 19.  On 7 July 2008 the applicant filed an objection with the Regional Government against the Municipal Council’s decision of 27 June 2008. 20.  On 4 February 2009 the applicant complained to the Administrative Court about the Regional Government’s failure to decide on his objection. On 9 February 2009 the Regional Government dismissed the objection. Therefore, on 13 March 2009 the Administrative Court closed the proceedings regarding the Regional Government’s failure to decide and awarded costs to the applicant. 21.  On 25 March 2009 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court against the Regional Government’s decision of 9 February 2009 (see paragraph 20 above). On 29 November 2010 the Constitutional Court declined to examine the complaint and on 27 January 2011, at the applicant’s request, transferred the complaint to the Administrative Court. 22.  On 25 January 2012 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaint against the Regional Government’s decision of 9 February 2009. The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 9 February 2012.


5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 6.  The first applicant, Mr Aleksey Yuryevich Vlasov, was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. 7.  On 6 October 2008 Mr Vlasov applied to the Federal Migration Service for a travel passport which would allow him to go abroad. 8.  On 27 October 2008 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow convicted him of smuggling and sentenced him as follows:
“... the penalty in the form of three years’ imprisonment is not to be enforced and is to be considered conditional with a three years’ probationary period.
To require Mr Alexey Vlasov to report twice a month during the probationary period to the authority in charge of execution of conditional sentences, and to inform [that authority] of any change of residence ...” 9.  On 11 November 2008 his application for a travel passport was refused by reference to the fact that he had been given a suspended three‑year sentence whose period of suspension had not yet expired. 10.  The applicant Mr Vlasov applied for judicial review of the refusal. 11.  On 3 June 2009 the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow upheld the refusal as lawful, finding as follows:
“The argument by Mr Vlasov to the effect that the Golovinskiy District Court’s judgment of 27 October 2008 contained an exhaustive list of restrictions during the probation period which did not include a restriction on leaving Russia and which was not, in the claimant’s view, subject to expansive interpretation by State officials, does not contradict section 15(4) of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act which provides for a restriction on the right to leave for abroad in cases of both actual custodial and suspended sentences. A person who is given a suspended sentence is a convicted offender serving a sentence, and may be relieved from punishment only after the period of suspension has expired. Mr Vlasov’s period of suspension expires on 14 January 2012 and after its expiry Mr Vlasov’s criminal conviction will be spent in accordance with Article 86 of the Criminal Code. Until that time Mr Vlasov is an offender serving a sentence, which is a ground for restricting his right to leave for abroad.” 12.  On 18 August 2009 the Moscow City Court rejected an appeal against the District Court’s judgment. It held:
“The arguments that Mr Vlasov was subjected to restrictions that go beyond those imposed by his conviction and that he was compelled to serve the sentence within the Russian Federation, whereas he needed to take care of his business interests and perform his duties abroad, are not grounds for setting aside the correct judgment [of the first-instance court].” 13.  The second applicant, Mr Mikhail Mikhaylovich Benyash, was born in 1977 and lives in Sochi. 14.  On 31 August 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi convicted Mr Benyash of extortion and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. He was released in the courtroom. On 12 October 2011 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. 15.  On 5 December 2011 the Federal Migration Service refused Mr Benyash’s application for a travel passport, noting that he had been arrested on 1 September 2010 and that, according to the available information, the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. 16.  The applicant Mr Benyash applied for judicial review of the refusal. 17.  On 28 June 2012 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi upheld the refusal as lawful:
“...for the time being the conviction of 31 August 2011 is not yet spent, Mr Benyash is a convicted offender, and, accordingly, the refusal [of travel documents] does not violate his rights”. 18.  On 29 November 2012 the Krasnodar Regional Court rejected the appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the District Court. 19.  On 11 April 2013 the Regional Court refused him leave to appeal to the cassation instance.


6.  The first applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Mosfellsbær, the second applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Reykjavík and the third applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Seltjarnarnes. At the material time the first and second applicants were on the editorial board of the newspaper DV and the third applicant was a journalist for DV. 7.  On 30 September 2010, an Icelandic private limited company, (hereafter “the company”), was declared bankrupt. The company was established in 1960 and is one of the leading industrial companies in Iceland in the production of plastic packaging material. 8.  In October 2010 the liquidator of the bankruptcy estate hired an accountancy firm to investigate the company’s accounts. 9.  On 31 January 2011 the accountancy firm finalised a report indicating a suspicion of criminal misconduct by the board members. The chairman of the board, A, who was also one of the owners of the company, was an assistant professor at the University of Iceland at the time. 10.  The liquidator reported the suspected criminal misconduct to the police. A holding company and a bank also reported the company and A to the police. 11.  On 14 March 2011 DV published a picture of A on its front page under the headline “Black report on [the company]: Police investigate Assistant Professor”. An article on the matter was printed on pages 2 and 3. The third applicant was identified as its author. The headline of the article read “Assistant professor entangled in police investigation” and another picture of A appeared beside the headline. The article was based on information from the accountancy firm’s report. It is not known how the applicants knew about the report and its contents. The article discussed inter alia A, who was a board member and one of three owners of the company and the former supervisor of the MBA programme and assistant professor of business studies at the University of Iceland. The article described the company´s situation with reference to the accountancy firm´s report. It stated that the report had concluded the company had paid for the A´s expenditures, which were unlikely to be connected to the company´s operations. The report had also indicated that A and one of his co-owners had known about the grave financial situation of the company long before it had been declared bankrupt in 2010. The report had concluded that the company´s assets had been partly expended when it was clear that it was insolvent. These assets had in fact been transferred to another company, owned by the A´s co-owner.When the company was declared bankrupt on 30 September 2010 the company owed approximately 1,100,000,000 ISK (approx. 7,150,000 euros at the time) to a large bank in Iceland. The amount had increased significantly after the financial crisis in 2008. 12.  On 16 March 2011 A’s lawyer received an email from a police prosecutor confirming that the liquidator’s complaint had been received and was being “examined” and that two other complaints received by the police were also under consideration. He stated that no formal decision had been taken to instigate a police investigation. A’s lawyer sent this email to the first applicant and requested correction of the impugned statements. The first applicant refused his request. 13.  On 28 April 2011 A lodged defamation proceedings against the applicants and DV before the Reykjavík District Court and requested that the statements published by DV, “Police investigate Assistant Professor” and “Assistant Professor entangled in police investigation”, be declared null and void and that the applicants be ordered to pay compensation, including expenses for publishing the final judgment. 14.  The applicants and A were heard and the email of 16 March 2011 from the police prosecutor to A’s lawyer was submitted as evidence. 15.  By a judgment of 5 March 2012 the District Court found that both disputed statements had been defamatory and ordered the applicants to pay 200,000 Icelandic Krónur (ISK) (approximately 1,600 euros (EUR)) to A in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, plus interest, ISK 200,000 for the cost of publishing the judgment and ISK 500,000 (approximately 4,200 EUR) for A’s legal costs before the District Court. The statements were declared null and void. 16.  The judgment contained the following reasons:
“... According to Article 73(1) of the Constitution everybody has the right to freedom of opinion and belief. However, Article 73(3) of the Constitution allows certain restrictions on the freedom of expression. It states that freedom of expression may only be restricted by law in the interests of public order or the security of the State, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights or reputation of others, if such restrictions are deemed necessary and in agreement with democratic traditions. In Chapter XXV of the Penal Code, freedom of expression is restricted in the interest of the rights and reputation of others. When deciding the limits of freedom of expression, the possibility of a public debate has to be guaranteed.
[The applicants] claim that the statements are true and refer to the principle that they cannot be held liable for true statements. It is undisputed that, before the newspaper coverage, [the police] had been informed by the liquidator of a reasonable suspicion of criminal acts by the company’s board members, of which A was one. It is also clear that the information given by the liquidator was based on [the accountancy firm’s] report of 31 January 2011. An email of 16 March 2011 from [the prosecutor] to [A’s] lawyer stated that the liquidator’s report was being “examined” [“til skoðunar”]. Furthermore, it was stated that two other entities [had reported, inter alia, A] to the police and that those reports “were also being considered” [litið til framangreindra kæra]. However, it is stated that no formal decision has been taken about a police investigation nor possible criminal acts defined.
[The applicants] base their defence on the fact that nothing in their statements, which [A] wants declared null and void, indicates that a formal decision had been taken to start [a police] investigation and that the wording of the statements should not be interpreted more widely than its general meaning indicates. Here it has to be taken into account that in general the media are required to base coverage on thorough research of the facts. Taking this into account, and having regard to [the absence of a formal decision by the police to investigate] [the company] and its board members, including [A], the court cannot accept [the applicant’s] arguments. No police investigation had been instigated against [A], thus the statements “Police investigate Assistant Professor” and “Assistant professor entangled in police investigation” were factually wrong, but both statements did in fact have the same meaning. It was not unreasonably difficult to verify whether such an investigation had in fact been opened. The wording of the statements was of such a nature as to make the reader believe that [A] was a suspect in a police investigation because of his criminal and punishable acts. This damaged [A’s] reputation. Therefore, the court has to agree with [A] that [the applicants] violated Article 235 of the Penal Code No 19/1940 (Almenn Hegningarlög) by publishing the aforementioned statements. In the light of the aforesaid, and with reference to Article 241(1) of the Penal Code, [A’s] request to declare the statements null and void is granted. However, there is no reason to impose punishment; therefore [A’s] request that [the applicants] be punished is rejected ...” 17.  On 8 May 2012 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court against the District Court’s judgment. 18.  By judgment of 6 December 2012 the Supreme Court confirmed the District Court’s judgment and ordered the applicants to pay, in addition, ISK 500,000 for A’s legal costs before the Supreme Court. 19.  As to the reasoning, the Supreme Court stated:
“... The aforementioned email from [the police prosecutor] can only be understood as meaning that no investigation had been instigated on account of the three reports [to the police] which are referred to in the email. There is nothing to indicate that such an investigation was initiated later and it will not be held against [A] that he did not provide confirmation of that during the proceedings as requested by [the applicants].
With these comments, [and] with reference to the District Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court confirms the District Court’s decision on declaring the statements null and void and confirms the publication of the judgment in the next issue of DV and the next online edition of DV after the delivery of this judgment. The annulled statements were wrong and defamatory for [A]. When examining the coverage and the publication of pictures of [the company] and its representatives in the printed issue of DV and in the online edition of [DV], [A’s] reputation was attacked, at a time when there were no grounds for it ...” 20.  By letter of 31 May 2013 the Special Prosecutor notified another company representative that “the investigation” into the complaints against him and A had been closed and the case had been dismissed.