CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 juillet 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. 110 July 2008 Schmidt v. Austria - 513/05 Judgment 17.7.2008 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Lawyer given a written reprimand for making a defamatory and unfounded allegation against a prosecution authority in written submissions: no violation   Facts : In written submissions, the applicant, a lawyer, accused the Vienna Food Inspection Agency (the Agency) of attempting to play tricks on his client. The Agency had a function comparable to the prosecution in ordinary criminal proceedings. Following disciplinary proceedings brought against him for infringing the Agency’s reputation, he was sanctioned with a written reprimand. He appealed unsuccessfully. Law : Although the impugned statement had not amounted to personal insult, but had rather been directed against the conduct of the Agency in the proceedings, the decisive factor was that the applicant’s allegations were not supported by any facts. Indeed, the statement had not explained   in any detail why the applicant thought that the Agency had acted improperly in bringing charges against his client. In contrast to the case of Nikula , what was at stake was not a criminal penalty but a disciplinary sanction. As regardsthe proportionality of the penalty, the most lenient sanction provided for by the Disciplinary Act had been applied, namely a written reprimand. In sum, the domestic authorities had given relevant and sufficient reasons for their decision and had not gone beyond their margin of appreciation. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three). See also Nikula v. Finland , no. 31611/96, judgment of 21 March 2002, Information Note no. 40.   © 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