CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 juin 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 65 June 2004 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH v. Austria (dec.) - 58547/00 Decision 22.6.2004 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Order to pay compensation for defamation of a politician: admissible The applicant was the owner and publisher of a weekly magazine which released an article in which a book was reviewed. The article criticised the author of the book for his indulgence towards Jörg Haider, in particular for “pardoning Haider’s belittlement of concentration camps as ‘punishment camps’”. Following a compensation claim by Haider, the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to pay compensation and publish a rectification, and also forfeited the issue in question. It found that the information had amounted to a reproach against Mr Haider as he was portrayed as having played down the extent of crimes committed in concentration camps, which was a criminal offence under the National Socialism Prohibition Act. Irrespective of whether the reproach had been a statement of fact or a value judgment, the court held it had not been justified and had therefore constituted defamation. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The applicant company complains that its freedom of expression has been breached. Admissible under Article 10.   © 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