CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 180 December 2014 Urechean and Pavlicenco v. the Republic of Moldova - 27756/05 and 41219/07 Judgment 2.12.2014 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Head of State’s immunity against libel actions is not absolute: violation Facts – At the material time, both applicants were politicians and members of an opposition party. In 2004 and 2007 the then-president of the Republic of Moldova participated in two television programmes in which he stated that “during the ten years of activity as a Mayor of Chisinau, [the first applicant] did nothing but to create a very powerful mafia-style system of corruption” and that the second applicant “came straight from the KGB”. Both applicants brought libel actions against the President, seeking retraction of the impugned statements and damages. However, their claims were dismissed on the grounds that the President enjoyed immunity and could not be held responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate. Law – Article 6 § 1: Under domestic law, the exclusion of libel proceedings against the President constituted an exception from the general rule of civil responsibility for defamatory or insulting opinions, limited to cases in which the President acted in the exercise of his functions. While it was acceptable that heads of State enjoyed functional immunity to protect their free speech in the exercise of their functions and to maintain the separation of powers, such immunity had to be regulated and interpreted in a clear and restrictive manner. In the present case, as the relevant domestic provisions did not define the limits of the immunity against libel actions, the domestic courts should have assessed whether the impugned statements were made in the exercise of the President’s official duties, but had not done so. Furthermore, as the immunity afforded to the President was perpetual and absolute, the applicants could not have brought an action even after the expiry of his mandate. The domestic courts had applied the rule of immunity without any enquiry into the existence of competing interests, thus conferring blanket immunity on the head of State, a situation which should be avoided. Finally, the applicants had not had at their disposal effective means of countering the accusations that had been made against them on national television. The manner in which the immunity rule had been applied in their case had therefore constituted a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court. Conclusion : violation (four votes to three). Article 41: EUR 3,600 to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage; no claim made by the first applicant. (See, generally, the Factsheet on the Right to the protection of one’s image ; see also, with regard to the immunity conferred on members of parliament, A. v.   the United Kingdom , 35373/97, 17   December 2002, Information Note   48 ; Cordova v.   Italy (no.   1) , 40877/98, and Cordova v.   Italy (no.   2) , 45649/99, both 30   January 2003 and summarised in Information Note   49 ; and De Jorio v.   Italy , 73936/01 , 3   June 2004)   © 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