CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 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 Karakó v. Hungary - 39311/05 Judgment 28.4.2009 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Dismissal of criminal-libel proceedings against a political opponent on grounds that allegedly defamatory remarks constituted a value judgment: no violation   Facts : The applicant was a politician and a Member of Parliament. During the 2002 parliamentary elections, a flyer, signed by L.H., the chairman of the regional assembly, was distributed in the applicant’s electoral district. The flyer contained criticism of the applicant’s conduct as regards major decisions in his county. Subsequently, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against L.H., accusing him of libel. The prosecutor’s office terminated the investigation finding that the impugned act did not concern a matter of public prosecution. In 2005 the applicant, acting as a private prosecutor, filed an indictment against L.H. However, the district court dismissed his indictment finding that the impugned statements were value judgements concerning a politician, who had to show greater tolerance. Law : The applicant had complained that, by refusing to prosecute his opponent for allegedly ruining his reputation in the voters’ eyes, the authorities had failed to protect his right to private life as defined under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court noted, firstly, that in cases in which the alleged interference with Article 8 rights originated in an expression, the protection granted by the State should be understood as taking into consideration its obligations under Article 10 of the Convention. Distinguishing between the notions of personal integrity, as interpreted in the Von Hannover judgment (Information Note no. 65), and reputation, the Court further observed that the latter had been deemed an independent right only sporadically, when factual allegations had been of such a seriously offensive nature that their publication had had an inevitable direct effect on the applicant’s private life. In the applicant’s case, however, he had not shown that the publication that had allegedly affected his reputation had constituted such a serious interference with his private life as to undermine his personal integrity. It was his reputation alone which had been at stake. Given that paragraph 2 of Article 10 recognised that freedom of speech might be restricted in order to protect reputation, such a rule precluded the possibility of a conflict with Article 8. Moreover, “the right of others” contained in the latter provision encompassed the right to personal integrity and served as a ground for limiting freedom of expression in so far as the interference designed to protect private life was proportionate. The Court was therefore called upon to determine whether the Hungarian authorities had properly applied the principles inherent in Article 10 to the applicant’s case. Since the impugned statements had been found to be value judgements and had been made during a political campaign and since the applicant was a politician, the Court was satisfied that the authorities’ decision not to prosecute L.H. was in conformity with the relevant Convention standards. Consequently, the applicant’s allegation that his reputation had been harmed was not a sustainable claim regarding the protection of his right to respect for personal integrity under Article 8. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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