CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 mai 2019

.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 230 June 2019 Z.B. v. France (communicated case) - 46883/15   Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for glorifying crime in slogans printed on a T-shirt worn by a three-year old at nursery school: communicated As a present for his third birthday, the applicant gave his nephew (his sister’s child), born in 2009, a T-shirt bearing the specially ordered slogans “I am a bomb!” on the front and on the back “Jihad, born on 11   September” (the child’s actual forename and date of birth). When attending to the child’s clothes after he had been to the toilet, the nursery school staff noticed the wording in question. Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and the child’s mother for glorification of homicidal crimes. They were acquitted by the first-instance criminal court, which noted in particular that the slogans had been seen by only two people. Setting aside that judgment, the Court of Appeal found them guilty, identifying various factors which showed the premeditated nature of their action and their awareness of its offensive nature. The applicant was given a suspended two-month prison sentence and fined EUR 4,000. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, briefly stating that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning had not distorted the facts, and establishing that the offence had been made out. In his conclusions, notified to the parties, the Advocate-General took the view that the sanction did not constitute an excessive breach of their right to freedom of expression, as circumscribed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. On a factual level, he noted in particular that, as the child was too young to get dressed on his own, the message was necessarily intended to be seen by third parties. The applicant complains before the Court of the grounds for his conviction, arguing in particular that the humorous nature of the message was not sufficiently taken into account, and also of the harshness of his sentence. Communicated under Article   10 of the Convention.   © 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