CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 avril 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. 118 April 2009 A. v. Norway - 28070/06 Judgment 9.4.2009 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Publication in newspaper articles of information in which applicant could be identified and perceived as prime suspect in murder case: violation   Facts : The applicant, who had served prison sentences for murder and assault with a knife, was released from prison about a year before two girls were raped and stabbed to death in an area he frequented. He was questioned about the murders as a possible witness but was released after 10 hours; two other men were subsequently convicted of the crimes. The police’s interest in the applicant attracted considerable media attention and several newspapers reported on his interrogation and criminal past, but did not disclose his identity. However, the main district newspaper published articles on the case on two consecutive days in May 2000 which disclosed details of the applicant’s past criminal convictions and stated that he had allegedly been seen by witnesses in the area at the time the girls were killed. It also stated that the applicant was “probably the most interesting of several convicted persons whose movements the police were now checking”. The articles did not name the applicant, but contained details of his place of work, residence and neighbourhood, and pictures of him (albeit from a distance and somewhat blurred). The newspaper also published interviews with the Chief Constable and a statement by the applicant maintaining his innocence. The applicant subsequently brought defamation proceedings against the newspaper and a television station that had also reported on the case. The domestic courts found in his favour and awarded him compensation as regards the television report. In respect of the newspaper articles, however, the Supreme Court found that while the articles were defamatory inasmuch as they left the impression that the applicant was suspected of the murders, publication had been justified by the applicant’s own statements to the media and the public interest, especially as the coverage was balanced and the police had underlined that no one was in fact under suspicion. Law : The issue before the Court was whether the respondent State had fulfilled its positive obligation to protect the applicant’s honour and reputation as part of his right to respect for his private life. There was no reason to disagree with the domestic courts’ finding that the impugned newspaper articles were defamatory in nature. Although the applicant had not been mentioned by name, the photographs and details of his places of work and residence had made his identification possible. Likewise, although the factual information published about the investigation was largely true and was accompanied by the applicant’s protestations of innocence and clarification by a chief constable that he had been questioned as a witness not as a suspect, the overall impression the articles conveyed to the ordinary reader was that the applicant was suspected of the murders and that there was a factual basis for the suspicion. While the press had the right to deliver and the public the right to receive information on such a serious matter, this could not justify such defamatory allegations and the harm it caused. The applicant had been persecuted by journalists in order to obtain his pictures and interviews at a time when he was undergoing rehabilitation and reintegration into society. As a result of the newspaper reports, he had found himself unable to continue his work, and had been forced to leave his home and driven into social exclusion. The articles in question had thus gravely damaged his reputation and honour and had been especially harmful to his moral and psychological integrity. Despite a careful and thorough review and a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, the national courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the newspaper’s freedom of expression and the applicant’s right to respect for his private life. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 19,000 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