In a ruling issued on Monday, the court in Bydgoszcz ordered Telewizja Polska to publish a formal apology to MP Krzysz Krzysztof Brejza for presenting private correspondence as public material four years earlier. The court also mandated Brejza receive PLN 200,000 in damages. The decision came in a civil case brought by Brejza to protect his personal rights. Brejza and his attorney, Dorota Brejza, attended the verdict announcement; Telewizja Polska did not appear represented at the hearing.
The verdict states that Telewizja Polska misrepresented the content of an article published on the tvp.info portal on August 25, 2019 and that this misrepresentation was repeated in subsequent material shown on TVP Info and TVP 1. The court found that private correspondence shared in the article was depicted as though Brejza had authored it, and that statements attributed to him were assembled from various sources and presented as a single, targeted message. This created the wrong impression that Brejza engaged in unlawful conduct.
Telewizja Polska must acknowledge, in a formal statement, that Brejza did not make the statements attributed to him and that those statements were copied to different recipients, suggesting a single coherent statement aimed at a specific group. The court also determined that the publication caused harm to his honor, good name and privacy, including the confidentiality of correspondence. It ordered the broadcaster to apologize for publishing false, manipulated and distorted material and to express regret for violating Brejza’s personal rights.
The court awarded Brejza PLN 200,000 in damages, with interest, and required the reimbursement of legal costs amounting to nearly PLN 17,000 with interest. The ruling also called for the publication of the apology within seven days after the judgment becomes final. The apology must appear on TVP1 and TVP Info, immediately before the main News edition, and on the TVP Info portal as well as other portals that carried the information.
Judge Ewa Gatz-Rubelowska noted that the case concerned an article published on the TVP Info website on August 25, 2019 in connection with the invoicing scandal at the Inowrocław City Hall. The article, the court found, exposed Brejza’s private text messages in a manipulated and false manner and aggregated statements from different years, including pre-scandal periods, all to portray him in a highly negative and even scandalous light.
The judge also stated that the evidence, including documents presented by the University of Toronto, indicated multiple phone interventions attributed to Brejza between April and October 2019 using the Pegasus spyware system. The court noted that TVP journalists did not have access to the plaintiff’s investigation files held by the Gdańsk Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that the publication stemmed from the suspect’s ill will toward Brejza as a leading figure in the opposition during the electoral period.
Following the hearing, Brejza emphasized that this is the first verdict recognizing Pegasus usage in this case and that the tool was employed to influence the 2019 elections. Brejza’s attorney, Dorota Brejza, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, highlighting the importance of holding public institutions accountable for their actions. Brejza’s lawyer remarked that the ruling underscores the necessity for a public broadcaster to maintain objectivity and impartiality while fulfilling its mission.
In subsequent remarks, the plaintiff’s counsel stressed that the decision marks a significant moment for evaluating the functioning of public institutions in Poland, particularly for a public broadcaster tasked with upholding fairness and transparency. The case has been widely discussed as a test of media responsibility and the protection of personal rights in a highly scrutinized political environment.
The publication of the court’s ruling, which clarifies the use of private communications and the handling of Brejza’s statements, is expected to influence how media outlets present information during sensitive political moments. This decision reinforces the standard that private communications should be treated with care and that misrepresentation can lead to substantial legal consequences. The proceedings and outcome are cited in ongoing discussions about media ethics and the limits of investigative reporting during election campaigns. [citation: wPolityce]
Source: wPolityce