CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 février 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. 94 February 2007 Ferihumer v. Austria - 30547/03 Judgment 1.2.2007 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Injunction restraining a parent from repeating criticism he had made of schoolteachers’ conduct: violation   Facts : In protest against governmental cuts in the education budget, teachers at a secondary school decided to reduce the time they spent on school trips. The applicant, who was the father of one of the pupils at the school and the vice-chair and secretary of the parents’ association, gave an interview to a local newspaper in which he complained that the teachers were applying intolerable pressure on the pupils and parents and thus abusing their authority. The teachers brought a civil action against him in a district court for insult and damage to their reputation and obtained an order restraining him from repeating the statements. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed on the grounds that his remarks constituted a statement of fact that was susceptible of proof, which the applicant had failed to provide. Law : It was common ground that the injunction constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression that was “prescribed by law” and served to protect “the reputation or rights of others”. The issue, therefore, was whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”. The applicant’s remarks had been made in the immediate context of a heated discussion between teachers, pupils and parents. The applicant did not favour the compromise that was finally reached and had reacted by saying that the teachers were applying intolerable pressure on the pupils that amounted to an abuse of their authority. In so doing, he was expressing his opinion on the teachers’ conduct and making a value judgment, the truth of which, by definition, was not susceptible of proof. Further, given the considerable tension at the school that had resulted in the resignation of the pupils’ spokesperson, the applicant’s remarks were sufficiently based in fact and could not be considered excessive. In that connection, the Court also took account of the fact that the applicant was vice-chair of the parents’ association. The interference had therefore gone beyond what would have amounted to a “necessary” restriction on the applicant’s freedom of expression. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for 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