CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 novembre 1998

.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. 1 November-December 1998 Peree v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 34328/96 Decision 17.11.1998 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for defamation: inadmissible   The applicant sent a letter to an anti-discrimination organisation in which he compared it to the Nazi S.A. He was subsequently convicted of insult. He reiterated his utterances against the organisation on television and was then convicted of slander. Following his appeals to the Court of Appeal, he was finally imposed a suspended fine of NLG 500 for insult and a fine of NGL 1,000 (approximately 3,000 French francs) for slander. Inadmissible under Article 10: The applicant’s convictions of insult and slander interfered with his right to freedom of expression. The interference was prescribed by law as the convictions were based on specific articles of the Dutch Criminal Code. The aim of the interference was the protection of the reputation of others, namely the anti-discrimination organisation. The applicant on two occasions drew a comparison between the organisation and the Nazi S.A. in response to critical remarks the organisation had made concerning a protest action against the planned housing of Yugoslav asylum seekers;   he was imposed a suspended conditional fine and the payment of a fine for these utterances. Thus, having regard to the circumstances, the present interference was reasonable and proportionate to the aim pursued: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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