CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 mars 2007

.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. 95 March 2007 Tønsbergs Blad A.S. and Haukom v. Norway - 510/04 Judgment 1.3.2007 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Orders to pay compensation and costs as a result of a newspaper article   identifying a leading industrialist as being on a list of householders suspected of contravening local regulations: violation   Facts : The applicants were the publisher and editor-in-chief of a newspaper which printed an article   on a list that had been compiled by a municipal council of property owners who were suspected of failing to comply with a local regulation requiring owners to be permanently resident in their properties. The regulation had been introduced in an attempt to control the exceptionally high demand for holiday homes in the area. The article   identified certain people on the list, including a leading industrialist. When it subsequently became clear that the property had, in fact, been removed from the list, the newspaper published an additional article   in which it commented that the industrialist had “got off”. It went on to criticise “major loopholes” in the system, in particular, the fact that the regulations did not apply to houses which the owners had built. In a further article, the paper stated that the property had been removed from the list, as the regulations did not apply to it. The industrialist subsequently brought private criminal proceedings against the applicants in defamation. His claims were upheld in part on appeal. The appellate court declared the impugned statements null and void and ordered the applicants to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court and were ordered to pay costs. Law : The case turned on whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression were “relevant and sufficient”. There was no reason to doubt their relevance to the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of the industrialist. As to whether they were also “sufficient”, the article   had not set out to damage the industrialist’s reputation, but to illustrate a problem which the public had an interest in being informed about. Nor did the article   relate exclusively to his private life, as it concerned a possible failure by a public figure to observe laws and regulations whose purpose was to protect serious public interests, albeit in the private sphere. In order to enjoy the protection of the Convention when imparting information on issues of general interest journalists were required to act in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and to provide “reliable and precise” information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. What was alleged was a breach of a regulatory requirement, not a criminal offence, even though locally such conduct was likely to be viewed as reprehensible from a moral and social standpoint. The allegations had been accompanied by precautionary qualifications. Even though presented in a somewhat sensationalist style, the overall impression given by the newspaper report was that, rather than inviting the reader to reach any foregone conclusion about any failing on the industrialist’s part, its aim was to question his compliance with the relevant requirements and the need for those requirements to be maintained, modified or repealed. The coverage did not lack proper balance, regard being had to the qualifications and counterbalancing elements contained in the original and follow-up articles. As to the further question whether the applicants had acted in good faith and complied with the ordinary journalistic obligation to verify factual allegations, there was substantial evidence to corroborate the newspaper’s contention in the initial article   that the municipality at that point considered the industrialist to be in breach of the relevant residence requirements. No blame attached to the journalist for reporting the municipality’s opinion without first ascertaining for himself whether the requirements did in fact apply to the property. On the contrary, in view of the relatively minor nature and limited degree of the defamation and the important public interests involved, the newspaper had taken sufficient steps to verify the truth of the allegation and acted in good faith. The applicants had had to face judicial defamation proceedings that had led to their statements being declared null and void and substantial awards against them for non-pecuniary damage and costs. That constituted an excessive and disproportionate burden that was liable to have a chilling effect on press freedom in the respondent State. In short, the reasons relied on by the respondent State, although relevant, were not sufficient to show that the interference complained of was “necessary in a democratic society”. There was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the restrictions on the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 90,000 for pecuniary damage, that being the amount the amount of compensation and costs the applicant had been ordered to pay in the domestic proceedings.   © 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