CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 juin 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. 120 June 2009 Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (n° 2) - 21277/05 Judgment 4.6.2009 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for defamation arising out of newspaper report on rumours about the then Austrian President’s marriage: no violation   Facts : The applicant was the owner of the Der Standard daily newspaper. In 2004 the newspaper published an article commenting on rumours that the wife of the then Austrian President intended to divorce and had close contacts with two men, an Austrian politician and a foreign ambassador. The presidential couple and the politician concerned brought successful defamation proceedings against Der Standard . The applicant company was ordered to pay compensation of EUR   5,000 to the President, EUR   7,000 to his spouse and EUR   6,000 to the politician and to publish the court’s judgment. Law : The domestic courts had given “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression and had not transgressed their margin of appreciation. In particular, balancing the various interests concerned, the courts had duly considered the claimants’ status as public figures but had nonetheless found that the article had failed to contribute to any debate of general interest. They had made a convincing distinction between the information concerning the health of a politician which might, in certain circumstances, be an issue of public concern and idle gossip about the state of his or her marriage or alleged extra-marital relationships. The latter did not contribute to any public debate in respect of which the press had to fulfil its role of “public watchdog”, but merely served to satisfy the curiosity of a certain readership. At no time had the applicant company alleged that the rumours were true. Even public figures could legitimately expect to be protected against the propagation of unfounded rumours relating to intimate aspects of their private life. Furthermore, the measures imposed on the applicant company had not been disproportionate. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).   © 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