CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 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 Bodrožić v. Serbia - 32550/05 Judgment 23.6.2009 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Criminal conviction of journalist for calling a prominent historian “an idiot” and “a fascist”: violation   Facts : The applicant, a journalist, published an article in a local newspaper condemning views that had been expressed on public television by a prominent historian concerning the existence and history of national minorities in Vojvodina. In particular, the article described the historian as “an idiot” and “a fascist”. In the ensuing criminal proceedings for insult and defamation brought by the historian, the applicant was found guilty and fined. Law : The Court found that, while the journalist had indeed used harsh words which might have been considered offensive, his statements had been a reaction to the provocative interview given by the historian in the context of a free debate on an issue of general interest. The article had not aimed to stir up violence; the expressions used by the applicant could only have been interpreted as value judgments and therefore opinions not susceptible of proof. The historian, a well-known public figure who had appeared on television, should have anticipated potential harsh criticism from a large group of people. Therefore, he should have displayed a greater degree of tolerance in this context. Finally, as regards the sanction imposed on the applicant, the Court noted that not only had he been criminally prosecuted, he had also been liable to 75 days’ imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 500 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