Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights found that Finland violated the right to freedom of expression by convicting a lawyer for defamation based on statements made during a criminal trial. The case arose from remarks made by the applicant, a defense lawyer, criticizing the prosecutor’s handling of the case during court proceedings. The Court highlighted the essential role of lawyers in upholding justice and stressed that their ability to speak freely in court is a key element in the administration of justice. While recognizing that lawyers must adhere to professional conduct and courtroom decorum, the applicant’s comments—though critical—were deemed to relate to a matter of public interest and made within the scope of her professional duties. It concluded that criminal penalties for such courtroom speech could have a chilling effect, which would risk deterring lawyers from advocating fully on behalf of their clients.

---

Facts

The applicant, Anne Nikula, is a Finnish national who acted as defense lawyer in a series of criminal proceedings before the Kokkola City Court, representing her client, I.S., alongside two co-defendants. The case arose from statements made during trial proceedings in 1992 and 1993, when her client faced charges of abuse of trust related to the dissolution of several companies. The public prosecutor in the case, referred to as T., sought restrictive measures against certain individuals’ business activities as a protective measure tied to these allegations.

During a hearing on February 2, 1993, Nikula submitted a written statement titled “Role manipulation and unlawful presentation of evidence,” allegedly criticizing the prosecutor’s conduct. She alleged that the prosecutor had improperly presented one of the co-defendants, S.S., as a witness against I.S. despite insufficient evidence, thereby obstructing the defense’s ability to cross-examine the witness. In her memorandum, Nikula accused the prosecutor of attempting to strengthen the prosecution’s case while undermining the defense, describing these actions as intentional and professionally unethical.

Nikula argued that the prosecutor’s strategy constituted a clear abuse of discretion, violating fundamental principles of justice and fairness essential to any lawful judicial process. She cited Norwegian precedents to support her claim that similar prosecutorial tactics had previously been deemed unethical, framing her arguments within established legal principles. Specifically, she emphasized that such role manipulation was atypical and unacceptable in a rule-of-law state, stressing the necessity of ethical conduct by public authorities.

The prosecutor filed a complaint with the Prosecuting Counsel of the Court of Appeal. On December 27, 1993, the Acting Prosecuting Counsel determined that Nikula’s statements amounted to defamation but declined to prosecute due to the minor nature of the offense.

The prosecutor then initiated a private criminal action against Nikula before the Court of Appeal, alleging that her statements had harmed his professional reputation and exposed him to public contempt. In response, Nikula defended her actions by invoking her right to freedom of expression as defense lawyer, arguing that her criticism of the prosecutor was essential to safeguarding her client’s interests. She maintained that her remarks were made in her professional capacity and aimed solely at challenging perceived injustices in the prosecutor’s trial conduct. Such criticism, she contended, was not only legitimate but necessary to uphold the integrity of the legal system.

On August 22, 1994, the Court of Appeal convicted Nikula of negligent defamation, classifying her statements as public defamation made “without better knowledge.” While acknowledging lawyers’ right to advocate for their clients, the court found that Nikula’s criticisms exceeded permissible bounds and lacked sufficient evidentiary support. She was ordered to pay a fine of 4,260 Finnish markkas (approximately €716), damages of 3,000 Finnish markkas (approximately €505), and the prosecutor’s legal costs of 8,000 Finnish markkas (approximately €1,345).

The Court of Appeal stated that “an advocate may request that every aspect of his or her client’s case be correctly and properly dealt with by the court” but stressed that lawyers’ criticisms must adhere to professional standards and factual accuracy. The court concluded that Nikula’s statements, though aimed at protecting her client, crossed into defamatory territory given the lack of sufficient evidentiary support for her allegations against the prosecutor.

Both Nikula and the prosecutor appealed the decision. On February 15, 1996, the Supreme Court of Finland upheld the conviction but deemed the offense minor, waiving the fine while retaining the damages award. The court underscored the delicate balance between legal practitioners’ freedom of expression and their duty to maintain professional conduct. It reiterated that while attorneys may criticize prosecutorial actions in defense of their clients, such criticism must be factually substantiated.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Nikula lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that her conviction violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression. She argued that her remarks were made in her professional capacity and that the penalties imposed hindered her ability to defend her client effectively.

---

Decision Overview

The European Court of Human Rights delivered a majority judgment in this case. The central issue before the Court was whether the conviction of Anne Nikula for defamation constituted a justified and proportionate restriction on her freedom of expression under Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case raised fundamental questions about whether convicting a defense lawyer for criticizing a prosecutor in court violated Article 10 ECHR, testing the permissible limits of legal professionals’ speech and the scope of defamation protections for public officials.

The applicant, Ms. Nikula, argued that her statements were made in her capacity as defense lawyer during trial proceedings and were directed at the prosecutor’s handling of the case, not at his personal character. She maintained that her remarks were necessary to defend her client effectively and formed part of her legal duty. Nikula emphasized that lawyers must be able to speak freely in court, particularly when representing clients in criminal proceedings against the state. She also noted that prosecutors—as public officials—should be subject to heightened scrutiny. She further contended that her conviction would have a chilling effect on legal advocacy.

The Finnish Government defended the conviction, asserting that lawyers must maintain professional decorum and refrain from making unfounded allegations against judicial actors. It argued that the comments exceeded acceptable professional criticism and that the conviction was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judicial system. The government maintained that while lawyers can critique prosecutorial decisions, doing so without factual foundation risks damaging the integrity of the justice process.

The applicable legal basis was Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. The Court reiterated that restrictions on this right must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society. It also emphasized that the necessity test requires showing a “pressing social need” and that the national courts must provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the interference.

The Court first found that the legal basis applied to Nikula were sufficiently clear and foreseeable, thereby meeting the legality requirement. It also accepted that the restriction pursued a legitimate aim: the protection of the reputation of others, in this case, the prosecutor. However, the Court found that the restriction failed the necessity and proportionality tests.

The Court acknowledged that civil servants may face wider criticism than private individuals but do not subject themselves to the same level of scrutiny as politicians. Protecting civil servants from offensive attacks while on duty is necessary to maintain public confidence in their work. However, the applicant’s remarks in this case were not part of public debate, so balancing such protection with the interests of press freedom or open discussions of public interest matters was not required. It also recognized that while a forceful exchange of arguments is essential for fairness, defense lawyer’s freedom of expression is not unlimited. [paras. 48-49]

The Court noted that unlike judges, prosecutors act as opponents in criminal proceedings, and this distinction “should provide increased protection for statements whereby an accused criticizes a prosecutor, as opposed to verbally attacking the judge or the court as a whole.” [para. 50] It highlighted that the applicant accused prosecutor T. of misconduct, specifically criticizing his prosecution strategy in the case, not his overall character or professional qualities. Although some language was inappropriate, the criticism was limited to his role in that specific case. Given the context, T. was expected to tolerate a high level of criticism from the applicant acting as defense lawyer. [para. 51]

The Court further observed that the applicant’s criticism was made in the courtroom, not publicly through the media. It was procedural in nature and did not amount to a personal insult, distinguishing this case from those involving personal insults (W.R. v. Austria, Mahler v. Germany). It noted that although the applicant wasn’t a member of the Bar, she was still under the trial court’s supervision. Prosecutor T. didn’t ask the judge to take further action, and the court simply dismissed the procedural objection without rebuking the applicant. The judge could have taken steps to manage her conduct during the trial if necessary. The Court emphasized that ensuring fair trial conduct should be handled during the proceedings themselves, not assessed later in a separate trial. [paras. 52-53]

The Court additionally acknowledged that the applicant was convicted of negligent defamation, though the offence was deemed minor and her fine was waived by the Supreme Court. However, she still had to pay damages and costs. It stressed that exposing defense lawyers to the risk of later legal action for criticizing a party in the trial, like a prosecutor, could undermine their ability to defend clients effectively. It should be up to counsel, under the court’s supervision, to judge the appropriateness of their arguments, without fear of penalties that might deter vigorous defense. [para. 54]

The Court concluded that limiting defense lawyer’s freedom of expression is only justifiable in exceptional cases. The fact that charges were initially not brought and that there was a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court indicates disagreement among national authorities. The Court found no sufficient justification for the interference and held that the restriction on Ms. Nikula’s expression did not meet a “pressing social need.” [para. 55]

The Court accordingly held that there was a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR, as the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the applicant’s conviction and require her to pay damages and costs was not a proportionate response to the aim pursued. It ultimately ordered Finland to pay the applicant EUR 5,042 in non-pecuniary damages, EUR 1,900 in pecuniary damages, and EUR 6,500 for costs and expenses, together with any applicable value-added tax.

Dissenting Opinion

Judges Caflisch and Pastor Ridruejo dissented. They noted that, in this case, the applicant, a defense lawyer, made serious accusations during a public hearing before a Finnish court against prosecutor T. She alleged “blatant abuse in respect of the presentation of evidence,” “trumped-up charges,” “role manipulation,” and other forms of professional misconduct and dishonesty.

Judges Caflisch and Ridruejo argued that it was necessary to balance the protection of the prosecutor’s and judiciary’s interests with the applicant’s right to free expression. The applicant’s statements were indeed serious, going beyond criticism of professional conduct to suggest dishonesty and abuse of office. Such claims can significantly harm a public official’s reputation and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

They emphasized that while defense layers must have considerable freedom to challenge prosecution strategies, this does not equate to unrestricted license to launch personal attacks. In this case, the applicant’s statements were particularly severe—arguably more so than in previous cases where no violation was found—and they negatively affected both the individual concerned and the integrity of the judicial process.

They also highlighted that the domestic measures ultimately taken were relatively mild, her criminal record remained clear, and the sanction did not threaten her professional future. Considering the importance of the interests protected and the fact that the applicant could have expressed her arguments in less inflammatory terms, the measures imposed were not disproportionate.

Judges Caflisch and Ridruejo concluded that the balance struck between the competing interests was reasonable. There existed a fair proportionality between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the protection of others’ rights and the judicial system’s dignity. As such, they argued Article 10 of the Convention was not violated.

---