CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 mars 2017

.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 205 March 2017 Ólafsson v. Iceland - 58493/13 Judgment 16.3.2017 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Editor fined for publishing allegations of child abuse against person standing for election: violation Facts – The applicant, the editor of a web-based media site, published allegations made by two sisters that a relative of theirs, who was standing for election, had sexually abused them as children. The relative lodged defamation proceedings against the applicant and requested that a number of the statements be declared null and void. The Supreme Court found statements consisting of insinuations that the relative was guilty of having abused children to be defamatory and ordered the applicant to pay compensation. In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complained under Article   10 of a breach of his right to freedom of expression. Law – Article   10: The issue of sexual violence against children was a serious topic of public interest. By running for office in general elections, the relative had to have been considered to have inevitably and knowingly entered the public domain and to have laid himself open to closer scrutiny of his acts. A general requirement for journalists systematically and formally to distance themselves from the content of a quotation that could insult or provoke others or damage their reputation was not reconcilable with the press’s role of providing information on current events, opinions and ideas. Punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview could seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there were particularly strong reasons for doing so. The journalist who had written the articles had tried to establish the sisters’ credibility and the truth of the allegations by interviewing several relevant people and the relative had been given the opportunity to comment on the allegations. In those circumstances, being aware that the applicant was the editor, not the journalist, the Court considered that the applicant had acted in good faith and had made sure that the article had been written in compliance with ordinary journalistic obligations to verify a factual allegation. It was clear that the disputed statements originated from the sisters. They had previously written a letter containing part of the allegations and sent it to their extended family, the police and child protection services. They had published that letter and all the impugned statements on their own website before the articles were published by the editor. It had been open to the relative under domestic law to bring defamation proceedings against the sisters and it was significant that he had opted to institute proceedings against the applicant editor only. Although the compensation the applicant had been ordered to pay was not a criminal sanction and the amount did not appear harsh, in the context of assessing proportionality, irrespective of whether or not the sanction imposed was a minor one, what mattered was the very fact of judgment being made against the person concerned, even where such a ruling was solely civil in nature. Any undue restriction on freedom of expression effectively entailed a risk of obstructing or paralysing media coverage of similar questions. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: no claim made in respect of 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