CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 décembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 125 December 2009 Karsai v. Hungary - 5380/07 Judgment 1.12.2009 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Finding by a civil court that article criticising author’s role on a question of the utmost public interest was defamatory: violation   Facts – In 2004 there was a public debate in Hungary as to whether a statue should be set up to commemorate the former Prime Minister Pál Teleki, who had cooperated with Nazi Germany and had been involved in the passing of anti-Semitic legislation. The applicant, who is a Hungarian historian and university professor, published an article criticising the right-wing press, including the author   B.T., for praising Pál Teleki’s role and for making anti-Semitic statements. B.T. brought a civil action against the applicant, claiming that his reputation had been harmed by a passage in the article that accused the right-wing press of “inciting against and bashing the Jews”. The regional court did not, however, grant his claim, holding in essence that the impugned statement had not concerned B.T. himself but the right-wing media generally. The decision was later reversed by the court of appeal, which held that the statement could be seen as relating to B.T. and that the applicant had failed to prove that it was true. It ordered the applicant to publish rectification at his own expense and to bear the legal costs. The court of appeal’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2006. Law – Article 10: The Court firstly considered that the impugned statements made an indirect reference to B.T. personally and had thus affected his reputation. Even though the domestic courts had qualified the applicant’s statement as one of fact, the Court considered that such classification should not preclude the protection of freedom of expression by being unreasonable or arbitrary. It was true that the applicant’s argument contained a factual statement describing B.T. as someone active in embellishing Pál Teleki’s historical role. However, that statement of fact was a value-laden one, since in his article the applicant had argued that the apologia of a politician with well-known anti-Semitic convictions amounted to participation in the process, ongoing in the extreme right-wing press, of trivialising his racist policies. In such circumstances, the Court could not fully endorse the domestic courts’ findings that the dispute concerned a pure statement of fact. Given the role that Pál Teleki had played in the enactment of anti-Semitic legislation in Hungary, the conclusions advanced by the applicant could not be considered excessive or devoid of factual basis. The applicant’s article had been published in the course of a public debate of the utmost public interest. Moreover, B.T. had voluntarily exposed himself to public criticism by publishing articles in the popular daily press as part of that debate. Lastly, the sanction imposed on the applicant, namely the duty to retract in a matter which affected his professional credibility as a historian, was capable of producing a chilling effect. In sum, the domestic courts had not convincingly established any pressing social need for putting the personality rights of a participant in a public debate above the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR   4,000 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