CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mars 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 Alves Costa v. Portugal (dec.) - 65297/01 Decision 25.3.2004 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for defamation: inadmissible The applicant was convicted after the publication in a regional newspaper of an open letter to the director of a treatment centre, to which he had taken his daughter and which he considered had provided sub-standard care; in the letter, he complained of shortcomings in the management of treatment. The court ruled that the expressions “unworthy”, “unskilled” and “unspeakable” used by the applicant to describe the director of the treatment centre had been defamatory and that the applicant had not succeeded in proving that his allegations concerning a child’s death at the treatment centre were true. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. Inadmissible under Article 10: Where specific allegations were made, it was necessary at the very least to provide a solid factual basis for them, which the applicant had failed to do with regard to the alleged death. Furthermore, the three expressions complained of were such as to offend the person targeted, and the applicant could have worded his criticisms regarding the treatment centre’s poor management, and thus contributed to an open public debate, without using such terms. Accordingly, the Court considered the grounds of the conviction “relevant and sufficient”. In addition, it considered that the sentence imposed, namely a fine of 100,000 PTE and damages of 250,000 PTE, had not been disproportionate. In short, the national authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation in this area: 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