CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 avril 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 24773/94                       by Andreas WABL                       against Austria        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 10 April 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 27 July 1994 by Andreas WABL against Austria and registered on 4 August 1994 under file No. 24773/94;        Having regard to:   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      26 July 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the      applicant on 18 October 1996;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, born in 1951, is an Austrian national and resident at Großklein.   He is a member of the "Austrian Green Party" ("Die Grünen") and member of the Austrian Parliament.   Before the Commission, the applicant is represented by Mr. T. Prader, a lawyer practising in Vienna.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   A.    Particular circumstances of the case        In June 1988 the applicant participated in a protest campaign against the stationing of interceptor fighter planes (Abfangjäger) near the Graz airport.   In the course of a police action, Police Officer Fellner charged the applicant with having scratched his right arm, and he subsequently requested that the applicant be prosecuted for having caused grave bodily harm (schwere Körperverletzung).   In July 1988 the Graz Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) informed the applicant that the investigation proceedings against him had been discontinued.        On 14 August 1988 the "Neue Kronen-Zeitung - Steirerkrone", issued in Graz, published the following article, entitled "Styrian Green politician and member of Parliament injured civil servant/Request for him to be handed over on account of the risk of infection" ("Steirischer Grün-Abgeordneter verletzte Beamten/Jetzt Auslieferungs- klage wegen Ansteckungsgefahr") as heading and "Police Officer claims: "AIDS test for Wabl!" ("Gendarm fordert: "AIDS-Test für Wabl!" as headline.   The article read as follows:   <Translation>              "Dramatic contribution to the debate on the privilege of      members of Parliament: Police Officer Walter Fellner (34) from      Aflenz not only requests for Styrian Green politician and member      of Parliament Andreas Wabl to be handed over, but also that the      member of Parliament - who is immune because of privileges, be      subjected to an AIDS-test.   Reason: Wabl scratched Fellner and      drew blood.              'I don't dare to touch my wife and I can't even kiss my      children' - Since he has been involved in a police action against      the opponents of the [planes] the family life of Police Officer      Walter Fellner is ruined.   The fear of the immune deficiency      syndrome paralyses the social relations and the sexual life of      the father of three.              The explosive background: On 10 June, shortly after the      [planes] had been stationed, the Police Officer, a senior Police      Inspector, participated in a police action in the area of a camp      of opponents of the [planes] at Graz-Thalerhof airport.   On this      occasion, 'frictions' developed between the demonstrators and the      police.   The result of an altercation between Fellner and the      Green politician Andreas Wabl was two bleeding scratches, one      five, the other ten centimetres long, to Fellner's right lower      arm.   Two witnesses and the local medical officer confirmed the      injuries.            Fellner does not claim that the immune member of Parliament      is suffering from the immune deficiency syndrome, but, as the      Inspector told the 'Steirerkrone': 'The member of Parliament had      been in contact with the other demonstrators and they were not      particularly clean.'   Criminal proceedings against Wabl on a      charge of causing bodily injury has been discontinued on the      ground of insignificance.   Fellner nevertheless requests for the      member of Parliament to be handed over.              'Mr. Wabl has to undergo an AIDS-test, as he might have      infected me', states Fellner and thereby asks the Green      'scratcher' to have a blood sample taken for the purposes of an      immune deficiency syndrome test.   Wabl's victim also intends to      claim compensation for moral damages.   As regards his claims for      compensation, Fellner is represented by the Graz lawyer Candidus      Cortolezis, who is known to be close to the opponents of the      [planes] and not to the authorities who guard the [planes]."   <German>              "Dramatischer Beitrag zur Debatte um die Abgeordneten-      Immunität: Der Aflenzer Gendarmeriebeamte Walter Fellner (34)      fordert neben der 'Auslieferung' des steirischen Grün-      Nationalrates Andreas Wabl wegen Körperverletzung auch die      Durchführung eines AIDS-Tests beim immunen Mandatar.   Grund:      Fellner war von Wabl blutiggekratzt worden.              'I trau mi net mehr, mei Frau anz'greifen, und meine drei      Kinder kann i a net amoi mehr obussln' - Seit einem Einsatz gegen      Draken-Gegner in Graz ist das Familienleben des Gendarmen Walter      Fellner aus Aflenz zerstört.   Die Angst vor der Immunschwäche      AIDS lähmt die zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen und das      Liebesleben des dreifachen Familienvaters.              Die brisante Vorgeschichte: Am 10. Juni, kurze Zeit nach      der Draken-Stationierung, war der Gendarmeriebeamte im Rang eines      Revierinspektors im Bereich des Draken-Wiederstandscamps am      Grazer Flughafen Thalerhof als Ordnungshüter eingesetzt gewesen.      Dabei war es zu 'Reibereien' zwischen Demonstranten und der      Exekutive gekommen.   Die Folgen eines Handgemenges zwischen      Fellner und dem grünen Parlamentarier Andreas Wabl: zwei blutende      Kratzer, der eine fünf, der andere zehn Zentimeter lang, am      rechten Unterarm Fellners.   Zwei Zeugen und der Distriktsarzt      bestätigten die Verletzungen.              Fellner will dem immunen Nationalrat zwar nicht      unterstellen, daß er mit der Immunschwäche infiziert sei, aber,      so der Inspektor zur 'Steirerkrone': 'Der Abgeordnete hat zuvor      mit anderen Aktivisten Kontakt ghobt, und die worn net unbedingt      sauber.'   Eine Anzeige wegen Körperverletzung gegen Wabl ist von      der Staatsanwaltschaft mittlerweile wegen Geringfügigkeit      zurückgelegt worden, Fellner verlangt aber dennoch die      Auslieferung des Mandatars.              'Der Herr Wabl muß sich einer Aids-Untersuchung      unterziehen, er könnte mich ja angsteckt hobn', fordert Fellner      den grünen 'Kratzer' zur Blutabnahme mit anschließendem      Immunschwächetest auf.   Für den erlittenen seelischen Schaden      will das Wabl-Opfer Schmerzensgeld einklagen.   Die      Fellner-Forderungen vertritt dabei ausgerechnet der Grazer      Rechtsanwalt Dr. Candidus Cortolezis, der bisher bekanntlich den      Draken-Gegnern nahe stand und nicht der (drakenbewachenden)      Exekutive."        This article, reproduced on pages 8 and 9 of the newspaper, was accompanied by a photograph showing the applicant and two police officers with the sub-title "AIDS-test for the privileged member of Parliament? Wabl (centre) in an altercation with the police." ("AIDS- Test für den immunen Abgeordneten? Wabl (Mitte) beim Handgemenge mit der Exekutive.").        The article was announced on the front page as follows:   <Translation>              "Green politician Wabl should have an AIDS test.              The Police Officer Walter Fellner from Aflenz asks Green      member of Parliament Andreas Wabl to undergo an AIDS-test.   Wabl      scratched Fellner and drew blood in the course of an altercation      (pages 8/9)."   <German>              "Grüner Wabl soll nun zu Aids-Test.              Der Aflenzer Gendarm Walter Fellner verlangt, daß sich der      Grün-Parlamentarier Andreas Wabl einem Aids-Test unterzieht.      Wabl hatte Fellner bei einem Handgemenge blutig gekratzt      (Seiten 8/9)."        The applicant requested the author of the article in question, who had not contacted him prior to its publication, to publish a rectification as well as a statement drafted by the applicant.        The text of this statement, published in the "Steirerkrone" on 17 August 1988, read as follows:   <Translation>              "In the context of the report on Fellner's request for an      AIDS-test, the 'Steierkrone' wishes to clarify that, when      mentioning the disease AIDS, it never intended to defame, for      personal or political reasons, the member of Parliament Andreas      Wabl.   We wish to apologise for any gross claims which were not      appropriate to our standards of fairness and our reputation as      journalists."   <German>              "Die 'Steirerkrone' möchte im Zusammenhang mit dem Bericht      über die Aids-Test-Forderung von Fellner klarstellen, daß es nie      beabsichtigt war, NR-Abg. Andreas Wabl mit der Krankheit AIDS      persönlich oder politisch zu diffamieren.   Für grobe      Unterstellungen, die unserer selbst auferlegten Fairneß und      journalistischen Ehre nicht angemessen waren, möchten wir uns      entschuldigen."        This statement was printed as an annex to an article with the headline "Defamation of Green politician not intended/hygiene expert Möse reassures: 'No AIDS-infection from scratches!'" ("Diffamierung von Grün-Abgeordneten nicht beabsichtigt/Hygieniker Möse beruhigt: 'Kein AIDS-Fall durch Kratzer!'"), with the following text:   <Translation>              "On Tuesday, the Graz 'hygiene-king', university professor      Josef Möse, reassured the Police Officer Walter Fellner from      Aflenz, who feared an infection with AIDS from scratches which      were allegedly inflicted on him by Green member of Parliament      Andreas Wabl.   Möse: 'AIDS cannot be caught by scratches.'              Möse, President of the Austrian AIDS Committee, informed      the 'Steirerkrone': 'Nobody has anything to fear from a simple      scratch.   Infection is impossible.'   The Head of the Graz      Institute for Hygiene immediately offered the senior Police      Inspector and his family 'a discussion to explain matters could      be arranged at any time'.              As reported Fellner feared that he had been infected with      the AIDS virus by two scratches to his right lower arm, which      were inflicted on him in the course of an altercation with the      Green member of Parliament Andreas Wabl.   Criminal proceedings      on a charges of causing bodily harm (superficial reddening) have      been discontinued by the Graz Public Prosecutor's Office on the      ground that the factual elements of the offence were not      present."   <German>              "Der Grazer 'Hygiene-Papst', Univ.-Prof. Dr. Josef Möse,      beruhigte am Dienstag den Aflenzer Gendarmen Walter Fellner, der      befürchtete, durch Kratzer mit AIDS infiziert worden zu sein, die      ihm der grüne Abgeordnete Andreas Wabl bei einer Draken-      Demonstration angeblich zugefügt hatte. Möse: 'Durch Kratzer kann      AIDS nicht übertragen werden.'              Möse, er ist Vorsitzender der österreichischen AIDS-      Kommission, zur 'Steirerkrone': 'Vor einem einfachen Kratzer      braucht man keine Angst zu haben.   Eine Ansteckung ist nicht      möglich.'   Der Chef des Grazer Hygiene-Institutes erklärte sich      sofort bereit, mit dem Revierinspektor und seiner Familie      'jederzit ein aufklärendes Gespräch zu führen'.              Wie berichtet, hatte Fellner befürchtet, durch zwei Kratzer      am rechten Unterarm, die ihm bei einem Handgemenge mit dem grünen      Nationalratsabgeordneten Andreas Wabl zugefügt worden waren,      möglicherweise mit dem AIDS-Virus infiziert worden zu sein.   Eine      Anzeige wegen Körperverletzung (oberflächliche Rötungen) wurde      von der Staatsanwaltschaft Graz wegen mangelnden Tatbestandes      bereits zurückgelegt."        The article further referred to the applicant's claims that the matter was a political campaign intending to bring him into disrepute.        Also on 17 August 1988 the applicant, on the occasion of a press conference, commented upon the events of 10 June 1988 and in particular the above articles of 14 and 17 August 1988.   He informed the press about his consideration regarding the background of the events which he considered to be a "political character assassination" ("politischer Rufmord").   When asked by a journalist how he felt about the above events, the applicant replied as follows:   <Translation>        "This is Nazi-journalism."   <German>        "Das ist Nazi-Journalismus."        This statement was quoted in the Austrian media.        On 29 August 1988 the company publishing the newspaper "Kronen- Zeitung" brought injunction proceedings under S. 1330 of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) against the applicant with the Graz Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen).   It requested that the applicant be prohibited from repeating the statement according to which the contents of the "Kronen-Zeitung" were "Nazi- journalism" and to arrange for a rectification.        In the context of private prosecution proceedings instituted by the applicant in respect of the article of 14 August 1988, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen), as confirmed by the Vienna Court of Appeal on 5 February 1990, convicted the company publishing the "Kronen-Zeitung" of defamation, pursuant to the Media Act (Mediengesetz), and ordered it to pay compensation to the applicant.        On 5 February 1993 the Graz Regional Civil Court dismissed the injunction claims.   The Court observed that S. 1330 of the Civil Code provided for a prohibitory injunction in respect of any statement of facts, which jeopardized someone's reputation, gain or livelihood, the untruth of which was known or must have been known.   Considering all circumstances and in particular the background of the press conference and the impugned statement, the Court found that the applicant had used the expression "Nazi-journalism" as a value-judgment.   The Court based its judgment on the statements made by the applicant and various witnesses as well as on an expert opinion regarding the interpretation of the expression "Nazi-journalism".        On 30 June 1993 the Graz Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal (Berufung).   The Court of Appeal confirmed the findings of the first instance court that the impugned statement was a value-judgment.   Furthermore, even assuming that the impugned statement was an untrue statement of facts, the plaintiff had failed to show that the applicant had known or should have known that this statement was untrue.   In this respect, the Court of Appeal referred to the expert opinion according to which the defamation of political opponents with an alleged illness was an essential element of the journalism under the Nazi regime.   Furthermore, even assuming that the impugned statement amounted to an insult, it was justified as a reaction to the plaintiff's previous publication on the applicant.        On 14 December 1993 the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), upon the plaintiff's further appeal (außerordentliche Revision, amended the Appeal Court's decision and issued a preliminary injunction order against the applicant prohibiting it from repeating the statement that the article "Styrian Green-Party politician and member of Parliament injured civil servant/Request for him to be handed over on account of the risk of infection, Police Officer claims: 'AIDS test for Wabl!'" in the "Kronen-Zeitung" ("Steirerkrone") of 14 August 1988 amounted to "Nazi-journalism", and similar statements.        According to the Supreme Court, S. 1330 para. 2 of the Civil Code presupposed facts, i.e. circumstances the existence of which could be demonstrated.   If a value judgment was based on particular facts it comprised a statement of facts.   The question whether or not "facts" had been disseminated that to be examined against the general context of the impugned statement, as understood by the man in the street.   In this respect the least favourable interpretation had to be held against the offender.   Objective criticism presupposed that the value-judgment corresponded to unchallenged or proven facts.   The Supreme Court further observed that under S. 1330 para. 2 of the Civil Code the plaintiff had to prove that the discrediting statement was untrue, unless the statement also amounted to an insult, in the latter case, the offender had to prove the truth of the statement concerned.   The question whether or not a statement constituted an unlawful interference with a person's reputation and credit could only be assessed in balancing all relevant circumstances.        The Supreme Court found that the applicant's reproach of "Nazi- journalism" had concerned an article published by the plaintiff, and had been raised on the occasion of a press conference concerning the plaintiff's defamatory reporting on the applicant.   The impugned statement had been an answer to a question put by one of the journalists, and, in the circumstances, they had no doubts that this statement only related to the particular article of 14 August 1988. In this context, the applicant's statement was a value-judgment.   In any event, there was no indication how the journalist had understood the applicants criticism "Nazi-journalism".        The Supreme Court considered further whether this value-judgment fell within the scope of S. 1330 para. 1 of the Civil Code.   The plaintiff could claim a prohibitory injunction under this provision, if, considering all circumstances, the plaintiff's interests were not less important than the applicant's interests.   The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff had an interest not to be associated with the National Socialism.   The reproach with "Nazi-journalism" would be close to a charge of criminal behaviour under the National Socialism Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz).   The Supreme Court also noted that the applicant's statement was a reaction to an article published by the plaintiff which contained the supposition that the applicant was suffering from the immune deficiency syndrome, i.e. a contagious disease, which provokes fear and antipathy in great parts of the population.   His indignation about the defamatory reporting might appear understandable but could not justify the reproach that the plaintiff's way of reporting comes at least close to criminal behaviour, in particular as he himself could have brought proceedings under S. 1330 of the Civil Code against the plaintiff.   Balancing all circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the applicant's interests did not outweigh the plaintiff's interests.   The right to freedom of expression could not justify such a serious attack on the plaintiff's reputation.   For the same reasons, the impugned statement could not be regarded as permissible political criticism, which is supposed to provoke or shock.   The Supreme Court also noted that, having regard to the applicant's statements in the course of the proceedings, there was a risk that he repeated the statement in question.        This decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 8 February 1994.   B.    Relevant domestic law        S. 1330 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) provides as follows:   <Translation>        "(1) Anybody who, due to defamation, suffered a real damage or      loss of profit, may claim for compensation.        (2) The same applies if anyone is disseminating facts, which      jeopardize someone's reputation, gain or livelihood, the untruth      of which was known or must have been known to him.   In this case      there is also a right to claim a revocation and the publication      thereof..."   <German>        "(1) Wenn jemandem durch Ehrenbeleidigung ein wirklicher Schaden      oder Entgang des Gewinnes verursacht worden ist, so ist er      berechtigt, den Ersatz zu fordern.        (2) Dies gilt auch, wenn jemand Tatsachen verbreitet, die den      Kredit, den Erwerb oder das Fortkommen eines anderen gefährden      und deren Unwahrheit er kannte oder kennen mußte. In diesem Fall      kann auch der Widerruf und die Veröffentlichung desselben      verlangt werden..."        After the Second World War, Austria introduced legislation penalising activities inspired by National Socialist ideas, i. e. the National Socialism Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz).   In the State Treaty (Staatsvertrag) of 1955, confirmed its undertaking to prohibit any such activities.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the Austrian Supreme Court decision of 14 December 1993 prohibiting him from repeating the reproach with "Nazi-journalism".     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 27 July 1994 and registered on 4 August 1994.        On 12 April 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 26 July 1996, following an extension of the time-limit.   The applicant replied on 18 October 1996.   THE LAW        The applicant complains under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention about the Austrian Supreme Court decision prohibiting him from repeating that a particular article published in the "Kronen- Zeitung" amounted to "Nazi-journalism".        Article 10 (Art. 10), so far as relevant, reads as follows:        "1.    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This      right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive      and impart information and ideas without interference by      public authority..."        2.     The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with      it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such      formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are      prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic      society, ..., for the protection of the reputation or      rights of others, ..."        The Government submit that the Supreme Court decision interfered with the applicant's right under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1), however, that this interference was justified under paragraph 2 of this provision.   They argue in particular that this measure was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and the rights of others.   Referring to the case-law of the Convention organs, they submit that the applicant went beyond the limits of permissible statements in a political debate.   Against the particular historical background, it is imperative to afford effective legal protection against unjustified accusations of expressing Nazi attitudes.   Thus the Austrian courts generally regarded such accusations as defamatory. Even taking the background of the applicant's statement into account, his comment was excessive.   Moreover, the applicant's statement did not contribute to a general debate on Austrian journalism, but was a biased and insulting reaction to an article defaming him.        The applicant contests the Government's views.   He considers that in a democratic society, a critical discussion should be permissible. As a member of parliament, there should have been no interference with his criticism of the "Neuen Kronen Zeitung", even if formulated in a slashing manner.        The Commission considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the case raises complex issues of law and of fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of the application.   The Commission concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the      merits of the case.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                          of the First Chamber