The Court of First Instance No. 2 of Arrecife dismissed the lawsuit filed by the Cabildo and the Centers for Art, Culture and Tourism (CACTs) against Andrés Barreto Concepción, spokesman for Intersindical Canaria, for an alleged illegitimate interference by the defendant in the honor of the Island Council of Lanzarote and the CACTs. Barreto said, in an interview given to a media outlet in May 2004, that there was no accounting for the last few years in the Tourist Centers, with a perceived shortage of some 3,000 million pesetas, and that there was also resale of tickets.
The judge considered that the information and opinions offered by Barreto in his interview were not mere rumors or insinuations, but are sufficiently truthful and verified. For example, when he offered information about the operation of these Centers, in previous times: "there has been resale of tickets ..." or "there has been looting of public money, money has been taken from the centers blatantly", or "the tourist centers have not had accounting". These statements should be considered truthful and therefore protected by freedom of information.
Regarding the statements about the accounting of the Centers, the Ruling alludes to the fact that they are based on the report of the economist Antonio González Viéitez (creator of the new management model of the Centers), which means that the information is sufficiently verified, since it shows that the director of each Center is the one who controls the staff and organizes the services.
Regarding the resale of tickets, some workers of the Centers, who testified as witnesses in the act of the Trial, stated, under oath or promise, that they have seen these practices. And that they informed the defendant of this, so the information is considered verified.
Freedom of expression
In the Legal Foundations of the Ruling, it is stated that it must be taken into account that the annoying or hurtful nature of an opinion or information, or the critical evaluation of the personal or professional conduct of a person or the judgment on their professional suitability, do not in themselves constitute an illegitimate interference in the right to honor, provided that what is said, written or divulged are not insulting expressions or messages, infamous insinuations or vexations that objectively provoke the discredit of the person to whom they refer.
Consequently, the judge considered that Barreto acted within the limits of the right to freedom of expression. This has as its object the free expression of thoughts, ideas and opinions, a broad concept within which beliefs and value judgments must be included. This right includes criticism of the conduct of another, even when it is harsh and may annoy, disturb or displease the person to whom it is addressed, as required by pluralism, tolerance and the spirit of openness, without which there is no democratic society, the Ruling says verbatim. In addition, it makes explicit that the defendant had the right to express himself and express his disagreements, in a context of union representative, since he exercises a public and representative function.
In any case, the Ruling is not final and either of the two parties may file an appeal with the Provincial Court of Las Palmas.
Barreto will appeal the lawsuit
The Ruling says that the dismissal of the lawsuit cannot entail the imposition of the procedural costs of the plaintiff, "given the factual and legal complexity of the issue debated, constituting serious doubts of law (art. 394 LEC), in view of the extensive and complex jurisprudential doctrine".
Andrés Barreto, who was very happy with the court decision, said that he will appeal the Ruling before the Provincial Court because he considers it unfair that two politicians (Mario Pérez and Pedro San Ginés) have used the Cabildo to sue him and being acquitted he has to pay the legal costs.