CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 décembre 2008

.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. 114 December 2008 Frankowicz v. Poland - 53025/99 Judgment 16.12.2008 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Disciplinary penalty imposed on doctor for criticising fellow practitioner in report to a patient: violation   Facts : The applicant, a consultant, was found guilty of unethical conduct by a regional medical court for expressing a negative opinion on the professional conduct of a fellow practitioner directly to a patient in a report on his treatment, in breach of the principle of professional solidarity laid down in Article 52 of the Code of Medical Ethics. The court did not examine the truthfulness of the opinion as it considered that issue irrelevant to the question of whether there had been a breach. It gave the applicant a reprimand in a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Medical Court. Law : In answer to the Government's submission that there had been no interference with the applicant's rights as his opinion had been made in the context of his commercial activity, the Court reiterated that matters relating to professional practice were not removed from the protection of Article 10. The applicant's conviction and disciplinary sanction for having expressed a critical opinion on medical treatment received by a patient thus amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. That interference was prescribed by law and followed the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of others. As to whether it had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court accepted that the relationship between doctors and patients, based on trust and confidentiality, might imply the need to preserve solidarity between members of the medical profession. However, it also recognised the right of every patient to consult another doctor for a second opinion on the treatment he had received and for a fair and objective evaluation of his doctor's actions. In the applicant's case, the authorities had concluded, without any attempt to verify the truthfulness of the findings in the medical opinion, that the applicant had discredited another doctor and was thus guilty of a disciplinary offence. Such a strict interpretation of the domestic law by the disciplinary courts as to ban any criticism of colleagues in the medical profession was liable to discourage medical practitioners from providing their patients with an objective opinion on their health and any treatment received and so to compromise the very purpose of the medical profession, namely to protect the health and life of patients. The interference was therefore not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 3,000 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