CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 avril 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 63 April 2004 Amihalachioaie v. Moldova - 60115/00 Judgment 20.4.2004 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of lawyer for criticising a decision of the Constitutional Court: violation Facts : The applicant is a lawyer and the President of the Moldova Bar Association. The Constitutional Court ruled that a law requiring lawyers to be members of the Moldova Bar Association was unconstitutional. A local newspaper published an article on the debate which the Constitutional Court’s decision had sparked off among lawyers; the article quoted comments the applicant had made during a telephone interview with a journalist. The Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s comments were disrespectful and discourteous and imposed a fine of the equivalent of 36 euros. Law : Article 10 – The interference, which was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. As to whether it was necessary in a democratic society, the Court noted that the impugned comments concerned a matter of general interest and were not excessive, or insulting of the judges. Since the applicant had not overstepped the bounds of acceptable criticism, there had been no “pressing social need” to restrict his right to freedom of expression. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41 – The Court held that the finding of violation was sufficient to redress any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.   © 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