CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 octobre 2015

.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 } .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 189 October 2015 Kharlamov v. Russia - 27447/07 Judgment 8.10.2015 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Civil liability of a professor for having criticised the election procedure of a university governing body: violation Facts – The applicant, a university professor in physics, was sued in defamation after he had expressed, during a university-wide conference for the election of the university’s senate, his view that the elected academic senate could not be considered a legitimate body because of shortcomings in the election process. The domestic courts found that the applicant was liable for defamation on the ground that, on the strength of the available evidence, the senate elections had been run in full compliance with the applicable regulations. Law – Article 10: The applicant had expressed his views at an academic assembly open to all university staff. He had been found liable for his speech, which brought to light a matter of professional concern, namely the opacity of the academic senate election. The impugned interference therefore had to be assessed in the context of its professional environment. The composition of the ruling body of the university and the procedure for designation of candidates to the election were of central importance for the university staff, and discussion around these issues formed an integral part of the organisation of the academic life and self-governance. The debate had taken place in public and the issue raised by the applicant had concerned a matter of general interest, which the applicant had been entitled to bring to the attention of his colleagues. There was no evidence that the domestic courts had performed a balancing exercise between the need to protect the university’s reputation and the applicant’s right to impart information on issues of general interest concerning the organisation of the academic life. The domestic authorities had also failed to take into account the fact that the “dignity” of an institution could not be equated to that of human beings. In the Court’s view, the protection of the university’s authority was a mere institutional interest, which did not necessarily have the same strength as “the protection of the reputation or rights of others”. Furthermore, the domestic courts found that the applicant’s statement was a factual accusation and that he had failed to discharge the burden of proof resting on him. However the thrust of the applicant’s speech was his severe discontent with the manner in which the academic senate had been elected. He had voiced his personal comment on a matter of public interest for university staff and had succeeded in showing that his impugned value judgment had a sufficient factual ground by relying on fellow professors’ testimonies corroborating his claim. He had not resorted to offensive or intemperate language and had not gone beyond the generally accepted degree of exaggeration. The domestic courts had thus overstepped the narrow margin of appreciation afforded to them regarding a debate of public interest and the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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