The Supreme Court announced Attack on the honor and dignity of the referee handball Insults published by two people against him on the Facebook page of the Canary sports club Chinijos Costa Teguise, after a child takes a break from a handball gamebecause he thought about it Some of the children’s glasses were not suitable for sports.
court, which orders them to pay him 12,000 euros in compensation, explain what They did not limit themselves to criticizing the postponement of the handball match, but devoted themselves “absolutely disproportionately to disqualifying him in his personal and professional sphere as a local police officer”.Due to the objective meaning of the statements made and the lack of connection with the arbitration performance, he also does not have to endure the notoriously insulting comments.
The referee filed a lawsuit against 4 people he claimedThey were sentenced to 30 thousand euros in compensation because they felt that their fundamental right to dignity had been violated due to the comments they made on the website. Facebook of the club in question. A court in Arrecife (Lanzarote) sentenced three of the defendants to 18 thousand euros in compensation and acquitted the fourth, on the grounds that the plaintiff waived the case against him. The decision was also ordered He demanded that the harmful comments be withdrawn and ordered the defendants to publish the decision on their Facebook accounts..
The Provincial Court of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria convicted two of the defendants and acquitted the third; this meant that the compensation was reduced to 12,000 euros; This decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court and highlights some of the comments made by the defendants: “The problem is that this person full of frustrations and a danger to pedestrian citizens, players and the like while in uniform. Your arrogance and lack of empathy will harm you. You are already doing this within the police and you are crushing the hopes of some children just because you think you are important”; “He had such a terrible childhood and as an adult all the hatred he carries inside him comes out, I feel sorry for him”; “I think he’s always lacked love, it would be great for him if someone loved him” “; “The truth is A poor bastard in uniform whose only argument is “I’m in charge here” and nothing elsebut hey, he makes friends with his arrogance and arrogance, everything in life is paid for” and “the poor guy is sick, he has little insight, we should campaign to raise money and pay for this subpar doctor. ”
The Supreme Court concludes: ““These statements exceed the limits of freedom of expression in a way that frontally attacks the plaintiff’s dignity and personal dignity.” He adds: “Identification of the person to whom the crime is addressed does not require, when possible, even for persons in the closest circle, to be specified by their names and surnames, due to indirect references or simultaneous circumstances. and in this case, the comments made, such as his status as a referee of a particular match and his occupation as a local police officer, allow for personal individualization of the plaintiff.”
The Chamber rejects the objections that the compensation amount is disproportionate, as objective or moral damage has not been proven. In this respect, he states that he “appreciates” the sentences appealed from. The objective and serious content of the allegations made not only affects the field of sports, but also goes beyond the plaintiff’s professional life, as well as some aspects of his childhood and private life.“With the moral damage they cause, the repercussions they create and their spread in social networks.”