CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 novembre 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 69 November 2004 Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland - 53678/00 Judgment 16.11.2004 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for publication of articles infringing the privacy of a Member of Parliament: violation Facts : The first applicant is the editor-in-chief of a newspaper. The second applicant is the company that publishes the newspaper. In 1996, the newspaper published three articles concerning the trial and conviction of the husband of Mrs. A., who was a Member of Parliament, for disorderly behaviour, drunkenness and assault on a police officer. The fact that the person convicted was married to this parliamentarian was mentioned in the headings of all three articles. In 1997, Mrs. A. instituted proceedings against the applicants claiming an invasion of her privacy and arguing that the articles had caused her particular suffering as she had been publicly associated with a criminal act that was in no way connected to her person or function as a Member of Parliament. In 1998, the District Court convicted the applicants on the basis of Section 15 of the Parliament Act for infringement of privacy under particularly aggravating circumstances. Heavy fines and the payment of damages were imposed on them. The court found that the articles had been published with the purpose of drawing the readers’ attention principally to the offender’s relationship with the Member of Parliament, and not to depict the events as such. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused. Law : Article 10 – It was not disputed that the applicants’ conviction and order to pay damages had amounted to an interference with their freedom of expression. The interference had been “prescribed by law” and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. However, concerning the necessity of the interference the Court firstly observed that there was no evidence showing a factual misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of the applicants or that they had exceeded in any manner the bounds of journalistic freedom. Although the contested articles did not have an express bearing on political issues nor were they of great public interest, the Court could accept the finding of the domestic courts that to some degree the matter was of public interest and could affect people’s voting intentions. Likewise, the finding by the domestic courts that the impugned articles had focused on the offender’s marital connection to Mrs. A. and had infringed the latter’s privacy could also to a certain extent be accepted by the Court. However, these were not sufficient reasons to justify the applicants’ severe conviction under Section 15 of the Parliament Act, which was based on Mrs. A.’s status as a Member of Parliament. As the offences in question did not have any connection with the discharge of Mrs. A.’s official duties, the automatic application of this Act had nullified the protection of the competing interests guaranteed by Article 10. The severity of the fines and damages imposed on the applicants viewed against the limited interference with the MP’s private life, had disclosed a striking disproportion between the protection of private life and freedom of expression. In conclusion, the reasons relied on by the domestic courts, although relevant, had not been sufficient to show that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously) Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicants a total of 36,345 euros in respect of pecuniary damage (22,155 euros for the first applicant and 14,190 euros for the second). It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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