CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 janvier 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. 82 January 2006 Giniewski v. France - 64016/00 Judgment 31.1.2006 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for defamation of the Christian community: violation   Facts : The applicant, a journalist, sociologist and historian, wrote an article in a daily newspaper on Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “The Splendour of Truth”. An association called the “General Alliance against Racism and for Respect for French and Christian Identity” complained that the article defamed the Christian community. The courts allowed the civil claim lodged by the association, finding that some passages in the article undermined the honour and character of Christians and, more specifically, the Catholic community. The applicant was found guilty of publicly defaming a group of persons on the basis of their religion.   He was ordered to pay the association one French franc in damages and 10,000   French francs in expenses, and to publish a statement concerning his conviction in a national newspaper. Law : Article 10 – The interference, prescribed by the 1881 Freedom of the Press Act, was aimed at protecting groups of persons against defamation on the basis of their belonging to a particular religion.   That aim corresponded to the aim of protecting “the reputation or rights of others” set forth in Article   10(2). As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court took the view that the conviction did not correspond to a “pressing social need”.   Although the article by the applicant had criticised a Papal encyclical and hence the Pope’s position, the analysis it contained could not be extended to Christianity as a whole, which was made up of various strands, several of which rejected Papal authority.   The applicant had sought primarily to develop an argument about the scope of a particular doctrine and its possible links with the origins of the Holocaust. In so doing he had made a contribution, which by definition was open to discussion, to a wide-ranging and ongoing debate, without sparking off any controversy that was gratuitous or detached from the reality of contemporary thought.   By considering the detrimental effects of a particular doctrine, the article in question had contributed to discussion of the various possible reasons behind the extermination of Jews in Europe, a question of indisputable public interest in a democratic society. In such matters restrictions on freedom of expression were to be strictly construed.   Although the issue raised in the present case concerned a doctrine upheld by the Catholic Church, and hence a religious matter, an analysis of the article in question showed that it did not contain attacks on religious beliefs as such, but a view which the applicant had wished to express as a journalist and historian. In that connection, the Court considered it essential in a democratic society that a debate on the causes of acts of particular gravity amounting to crimes against humanity should be able to take place freely. The article in question had, moreover, not been “gratuitously offensive” or insulting, and had not incited disrespect or hatred. Nor had it cast doubt in any way on clearly established historical facts. With regard to the penalties imposed on the applicant, the fact that the statement which he had been required to publish had mentioned the criminal offence of defamation undoubtedly had a deterrent effect, and the sanction appeared disproportionate in view of the importance of the debate in which the applicant had legitimately sought to take part. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   © 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