Baena Salamanca v Spain: Press freedom prevails in forensic doctor defamation case

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled there was no violation of Article 8 in a closely divided judgement concerning a Spanish forensic doctor's defamation claim against El País newspaper. The 4-3 decision in Baena Salamanca v Spain provides important guidance on balancing reputation rights against press freedom when reporting matters of significant public interest.

María del Carmen Baena Salamanca, a forensic doctor at the Audiencia Nacional, prepared a medical report on an ETA member serving a 30-year sentence for murder and kidnapping. The prisoner had been diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer and was seeking conditional release on health grounds. Dr Baena's report, based on medical records, concluded that whilst the prognosis was poor, the prisoner was not terminally ill at that time.

In September 2012, El País published an article stating that Dr Baena had "ignored" a court order to personally examine the prisoner, despite having issued a report without conducting such an examination. The article's headline emphasised this alleged failure to comply with judicial directions. The prisoner's subsequent release generated substantial media attention and public debate in Spain.

Crucially, it later emerged that whilst a court order for a personal examination had been issued on 17 August 2012, there was no evidence it had ever been communicated to Dr Baena or the forensic medical centre. An accompanying letter produced by El País in subsequent proceedings was found to have been tampered with, with the addressee removed—it corresponded to correspondence sent to the prison service, not the forensic centre.

Domestic proceedings and judicial approach

Dr Baena successfully obtained a correction order in right of reply proceedings, though this was never enforced due to a subsequent settlement. Her civil defamation claim, however, ultimately failed. The Spanish Supreme Court found that the journalist had acted with due diligence, reasonably believing the court order had been transmitted to Dr Baena as the designated forensic doctor for the Audiencia Nacional.

The Supreme Court emphasised that journalistic "truthfulness" differs from absolute truth—it requires verification of information against objective data according to professional standards, even if subsequently refuted. The court found the journalist had properly relied on official documentation and could not reasonably have been expected to investigate internal administrative communication failures.

ECHR analysis and reasoning

The Strasbourg Court accepted that the allegations, suggesting professional misconduct by a civil servant, were sufficiently serious to engage Article 8 protection. However, applying established principles on balancing competing Convention rights, the majority found the domestic courts had acted within their margin of appreciation.

Key factors influencing the judgement included the undeniable public interest in the prisoner's release; Dr Baena's status as a civil servant carrying out official duties, thus subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than private individuals; and the journalist's reliance on official court documentation. The Court noted it would require "strong reasons" to substitute its view where domestic courts had properly applied Convention principles.

The majority accepted the Supreme Court's conclusion that investigating the notification issue would likely have been fruitless, given the absence of reliable documentation systems and the fact that even multiple rounds of litigation failed to establish what occurred.

Dissenting perspective

The three dissenting judges disagreed fundamentally with the assessment of journalistic diligence. They emphasised that the article's core allegation—that Dr Baena had "ignored" the order—required verification that she had actually received and been aware of it. The edited accompanying letter and vague references to documents being "pushed under the door" of a closed office should have prompted more cautious reporting. The dissent concluded that fair balance had not been struck in assessing whether adequate fact-checking occurred before publication.

The case illustrates the continuing tension between reputation protection and press freedom in reporting matters of legitimate public concern, particularly where civil servants' professional conduct is scrutinised.