CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 mai 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 64 May 2004 Seurot v. France (dec.) - 57383/00 Decision 18.5.2004 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Dismissal of teacher on account of racist and hate writings: inadmissible The applicant taught history and geography in a secondary school. He wrote an article which was published in the school's internal newspaper and distributed to all the pupils and their parents. Some of the published remarks were considered to be violently and offensively racist and likely to incite hatred. For those reasons, the applicant was convicted of the offence of incitement to racial hatred, and his teaching contract was terminated. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. Inadmissible under Article 10: The specific duties and responsibilities incumbent on teachers, who symbolised authority in the eyes of their pupils, also applied with regard to their related activities in the school in which they taught. Education for democratic citizenship, one of the Council of Europe's major tasks, was essential for fighting against racism and xenophobia. Such education presupposed the mobilisation of responsible players, specifically teachers. In the instant case, the termination of the applicant's teaching contract represented interference, prescribed by law, which had pursued the legitimate aim of “protection of the reputation” and “of the rights of others”. The indisputably racist content of the applicant's article was incompatible with his duties and responsibilities. The serious measure taken against him had not been disproportionate. The interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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