CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 119 May 2009 Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa v. Portugal - 1529/08 Decision 26.5.2009 [Section II] Article 14 Discrimination Rule exempting judges, on account of their office, from legal costs when they are parties to proceedings: inadmissible   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Rule exempting judges, on account of their office, from legal costs when they are parties to proceedings: inadmissible   Facts : In 1996 criminal proceedings were opened against a lawyer, H.P., and a judge, F.G., on suspicion of corruption. The discontinuance of the proceedings against F.G. was subsequently ordered and became final with a judgment of the Supreme Court. In 1998, E.R., head of news at the TV channel SIC and brother-in-law of F.G., published an article in which he commended the Supreme Court’s decision and strongly criticised those whom he accused of waging war against it. The applicants had an article published in response to that of E.R. F.G. brought an action for damages against the applicants, alleging in particular that the offending article, together with an interview given by the first applicant to a weekly newspaper, had impugned her reputation. She further claimed that, in her capacity as judge, she was exempted from any court courts related to her action. The court acknowledged that she had suffered damage to her reputation but pointed out, however, that she had already received reparation for the damage caused by the interview in question in the context of another set of proceedings that she had previously initiated. The only compensation now due concerned the damage caused by the offending article, which the court evaluated at 15,000 euros. Both the judge and the applicants appealed against that judgment. Invoking their right to a fair hearing, the applicants challenged the exemption from court costs granted to her, stating that this difference in treatment in relation to them had breached the principle of the equality of arms. They further alleged that the decision against them infringed Article 10 of the Convention. In a judgment of 20 June 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal and partly upheld that of the judge. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants. Their constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible. Inadmissible – Article 6 § 1 – In the present case the Court was unable to find that the applicants’ procedural position had been affected by the cost exemption granted to the other party, it not being very different from a situation where the other party has been granted legal aid: manifestly ill-founded . Article 14 – In the present case it could not be considered that the applicants found themselves in the same situation as the other party, who was a judge. Portuguese law provided that judges should be afforded a special exemption from court costs when they were parties to proceedings brought in connection with their professional duties. The domestic courts in the present case took the view that the judge could be granted such an exemption, as the proceedings in question fell within the scope of Article 17 § 1 (g) of the regulations governing the judiciary. Even supposing that it had been possible to find that the opposing parties were in a comparable situation, the difference in treatment might also have been based on an objective and reasonable discrepancy, it being quite reasonable to provide for a separate system as regards the payment of court costs in respect of judges, who were likely to become parties, as a result of their judicial duties, to proceedings brought by dissatisfied litigants: manifestly ill-founded . Article 10 – complaint communicated.   © 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