CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 septembre 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. 111 August-September 2008 Cuc Pascu v. Romania - 36157/02 Judgment 16.9.2008 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of a journalist for offensive behaviour and defamation: no violation   Facts : The applicant, a journalist, was convicted at first instance of offensive behaviour and acquitted of defamation following the publication in a local newspaper of an article in which he made various offensive assertions about M.I., the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of Oradea University and also a Member of Parliament, accusing him of fraud and plagiarism, inter alia . His appeal was dismissed and he was convicted of offensive behaviour and defamation and sentenced to pay a fine of EUR 640   and, jointly with the newspaper which published the article, to pay damages.   Law : The applicant’s conviction amounted to interference, prescribed by the Romanian Criminal Code, which pursued the legitimate aim of “protecting the rights of others”, in this case M.I.’s reputation. While the applicant effectively had a duty to alert the public to alleged misconduct by the authorities, the fact that he had directly accused M.I. obliged him to adduce sufficient factual evidence to corroborate his accusations. The applicant had failed, however, to prove the truthfulness of his assertions before the domestic courts, even though he had been given an opportunity to do so during the proceedings. In the absence of such factual evidence the applicant, as a journalist, should have shown the utmost rigour and exercised particular caution before publishing the offending article. It had been published, however, without the applicant even having verified its content, even though the information it contained had been communicated by a third party. Concerning the allegations of criminal misconduct, M.I. had never had any criminal proceedings brought against him and the applicant had given no objective explanation for such accusations. Nor could the offensive statements the applicant had made be seen as the expression of the   “measure of exaggeration”   or   “provocation”   the press were allowed. As regards the proportionality of the interference with the right to freedom of expression, although the sums the applicant had been sentenced to pay were not negligible, the serious nature of his accusations against the victim and the language in which they were couched had to be taken into account. In view of the margin of appreciation left to the contracting States in such cases, the Court found that the applicant’s sentence had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and that the impugned interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”. 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