CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 octobre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 178 October 2014 Matúz v. Hungary - 73571/10 Judgment 21.10.2014 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Journalist dismissed for publishing a book criticising his employer in breach of confidentiality clause: violation Facts – The applicant was a Hungarian journalist employed by the State television company. In 2004 he was dismissed for breaching a confidentiality clause after he published a book concerning alleged censorship by a director of the company. The applicant challenged his dismissal in the domestic courts, but without success. Law – Article 10: The applicant’s dismissal constituted an interference with the exercise of his right protected by Article   10 as the decision was prompted only by the publication of his book, without further examination of his professional ability. The book essentially concerned a matter of public interest and no third party had even complained about it. Regard being had to the role played by journalists in a democratic society and to their responsibilities to contribute to and encourage public debate, confidentiality constraints and the obligation of discretion could not be said to apply with equal force to them, given that it was in the nature of their functions to impart information and ideas. Furthermore, in the particular context of the applicant’s case, his obligations of loyalty and restraint had to be weighed against the public character of the broadcasting company he worked for. In this respect, the domestic authorities should have paid particular attention to the public interest attaching to the applicant’s conduct. Furthermore, while the authenticity of the documents published by the applicant had never been called into question, some of his statements amounted to value judgments, the truth of which was not susceptible of proof. Although the publication of the documents in the applicant’s book constituted a breach of confidentiality, their substance had already been made accessible to the public through an online publication before the book was published. As to the applicant’s motives, namely, to draw public attention to censorship within the State television, his good faith had never been called into question during the domestic proceedings. Furthermore, the book was published only after the applicant had unsuccessfully tried to complain about the alleged censorship to his employer. In addition, the sanction imposed – termination of the employment with immediate effect – was rather severe. Finally, the domestic courts had found against the applicant solely on the ground that publication of the book breached his contractual obligations, without considering his argument that he was exercising his freedom of expression in the public interest. The domestic courts had thus failed to examine whether and how the subject matter of the applicant’s book and the context of its publication could have affected the permissible scope of restriction on his freedom of expression. Therefore, the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (See also Fuentes Bobo v. Spain , 39293/98, 29   February 2000; and Wojtas-Kaleta v.   Poland , 20436/02, 16   July 2009, Information Note   121 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes