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 and Vujin v. Serbia - 38435/05 Judgment 23.6.2009 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Criminal conviction of journalists for comparing a prominent local lawyer to a blonde woman: violation   Facts : The applicants, who were journalists on a local magazine, published an article criticising the criminal convictions of journalists for defamation. In the article, the first applicant called a well-known male lawyer “a blonde” and the second applicant published a photograph of a blonde woman in her underwear next to an anagram of the lawyer’s name. In the ensuing criminal proceedings for insult brought by the lawyer, both applicants were found guilty and fined. Law : While the text of the article and the picture had been somewhat mocking, when considered as a whole, they could not have been understood as a gratuitous personal insult of the lawyer. In addition, the domestic courts’ conclusion that comparing an adult man to a blonde woman was an attack on the integrity and dignity of men was unacceptable. As the article expressed general disapproval of the domestic courts’ practice of punishing journalistic freedom of expression, the applicants had raised an important issue of general public interest. As a well-known figure locally, the lawyer should therefore have displayed a higher degree of tolerance of the criticism directed at him. As regards the sanction imposed on the applicants, the Court noted that they had been liable to 60 days’ imprisonment in default of payment of the fine and pointed out that recourse to the criminal prosecution of journalists for purported insults that raised issues of public debate should be considered proportionate only in very exceptional circumstances involving a most serious attack on an individual’s rights. 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