CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 octobre 2006

.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. 90 October 2006 Klein v. Slovakia - 72208/01 Judgment 31.10.2006 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for defamation of Catholic Archbishop: violation   Facts : A weekly magazine published an article   written by the applicant in which he criticised a Slovakian Archbishop for his proposal to have withdrawn the distribution of a film on the grounds of its profanatory and blasphemous nature. The article   contained strong imagery of sexual connotation. He also alluded to the Archbishop’s alleged cooperation with the secret police of the former communist regime. Finally, he invited the members of the Catholic Church to leave their church if they considered themselves to be decent and alleged that the representative of the church was an ogre. Upon the complaint of two associations, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and he was convicted of the offence of defamation of nation, race and belief and sentenced to a fine or to one month’s imprisonment. The Archbishop, who first joined the proceedings as an aggrieved person, publicly pardoned the applicant and withdrew from the case. The courts concluded that the applicant had defamed the highest representative of the Roman Catholic Church in Slovakia and had disparaged a group of citizens for their Catholic faith. Law : Contrary to the domestic courts’ findings, the Court was not persuaded that the applicant had discredited and disparaged Catholics in his article, even if some of them might have been offended by the criticism of the Archbishop and by applicant’s statement that he did not understand why decent Catholics did not leave that Church. The applicant’s strongly-worded pejorative opinion had related exclusively to the Archbishop and had not unduly interfered with the right of believers to express and exercise their religion, nor had it denigrated the content of their religious faith. Moreover, the article, published in a weekly with rather limited circulation, was expected to be appreciated by only a few intellectuals. For those reasons, despite the innuendoes with oblique vulgar and sexual overtones in the article, and given the Archbishop’s pardon to the applicant, the latter’s conviction was inappropriate in the particular circumstances of the case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage (EUR 6,000). For further details, see Press Release no. 648.   © 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