CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 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 194 March 2016 Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (referral) - 17224/11 Judgment 13.10.2015 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression NGOs liable for defamation of public servant for sending private letter of complaint to a local authority which was then published in the press: case referred to the Grand Chamber In 2003 the applicants, four non-governmental organisations (NGOs) of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, wrote a letter to the district authorities complaining about the alleged misconduct of an editor of the public radio station. Shortly afterwards, the letter was published in three newspapers. The editor brought civil defamation proceedings against the applicant NGOs, which were eventually found liable for defamation and ordered to retract their statements and publish the judgment against them at their own expense. They failed to do so and were ultimately required to pay approximately EUR 1,445 in execution of the judgment. In a judgment of 13 October 2015 a Chamber of the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article   10 of the Convention. The Chamber found that the national courts had correctly concluded that the applicant NGOs had acted negligently in simply reporting the editor’s alleged misconduct without making a reasonable effort to verify its accuracy. The domestic courts had therefore struck a fair balance between the editor’s right to reputation and the applicant NGOs’ right to report irregularities about the conduct of a public servant to the body competent to deal with such complaints. On 14 March 2016 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant NGOs’ request.   © 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