CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 septembre 1994

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law September 1994 Jersild v. Denmark - 15890/89 Judgment 23.9.1994 [GC] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction and sentence to a fine of a television journalist for aiding and abetting the dissemination of racist statements: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Only point at issue was whether the measures were "necessary in a democratic society". Object and purpose of the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of great weight - no conflict between Article 10 and that Convention - in considering "duties and responsibilities" of a journalist, potential impact of medium concerned an important factor - at the same time, not for the Court nor for national courts to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what techniques of reporting should be adopted by journalists. Applicant had himself taken initiative of preparing the impugned feature and knew in advance that racist statements were likely to be made during interviews and had encouraged such remarks to be made   - he had edited item in such a way as to include the offensive assertions - without his involvement they would not have been disseminated - Court satisfied that these were relevant reasons for the purposes of Article 10. On the other hand, the feature, taken as a whole, could not objectively have appeared to have had as its purpose the propagation of racist views and ideas - admittedly, the item did not explicitly recall immorality, dangers and unlawfulness of racism but, in view of counterbalancing elements contained therein and the natural limitations on spelling out such elements in a short feature as well as journalist's discretion as to form, absence of such precautionary reminders was irrelevant - news reporting based on interviews, edited or not, constitutes a most important means whereby press is able to play vital "public watchdog" role - punishment of journalist for assisting dissemination of statements made by others in an interview would seriously hamper press contribution to discussions of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless particularly strong reasons - limited nature of fine irrelevant - racist remarks made by persons interviewed, who had also been convicted, clearly not protected by Article 10 - however, even having regard to manner in which applicant prepared the item, not shown that, considered as a whole, it was such as to justify also his conviction - did not appear from relevant judgments that national courts took into account that purpose in compiling broadcast was not racist. Reasons adduced in support of applicant's conviction and sentence were thus not sufficient to establish that the interference was "necessary"; in particular means employed were disproportionate to aim of protecting "the rights or reputation of others". Conclusion : violation (twelve votes to seven). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage : reimbursement of fine ordered. B.   Non-pecuniary damage : finding of a breach sufficient just satisfaction. C.   Costs and expenses : full reimbursement awarded. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant (seventeen votes to two).   © 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