Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Fariña case, involving a well-known book that chronicles the history of drug trafficking in Galicia, which had been withdrawn from sale for a time as a precautionary measure following a lawsuit filed for libel and slander.
That book mentions, on several occasions, Mr. Bernabe’s involvement in drug trafficking, which, in the plaintiff’s view, violated his right to a good reputation.
To understand the case at hand, it is important to note that Mr. Bernabe has been prosecuted twice for drug-trafficking-related crimes and that in both cases he was found not guilty of the charges against him.
The main issue at issue in this case concerns the conflict between two fundamental rights: freedom of information and the right to reputation
The Court affirms that what is required of a journalist is to act reasonably in verifying the facts so as not to undermine everyone’s right to receive accurate information, which is considered accurate if it is based on objective and reliable sources that are clearly identified and verifiable, so that the conclusions reached by the reporter based on the verified data resulting from those sources are conclusions that the average reader or viewer would have reached as well with the same data.
Finally, the Court dismisses the appeals against the author of the book.
Summary of the commentary published in Kluwer IP Law Copyright Cases
Author: Inés de Casas