CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 septembre 2003

.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 56 September 2003 Hrico v. Slovakia (dec.) - 49418/99 Decision 16.9.2003 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of the publisher/chief editor of a weekly for publishing a series of articles criticising a Supreme Court judge: admissible The applicant was the publisher/editor-in-chief of a weekly which published three articles on a defamation case that was pending in the courts. The case concerned proceedings which a former Minister had brought against a poet for alleging that he had a fascist past and should not be a Minister. The articles generally supported the statements which the poet had made, considering them as facts, and expressed regret for the conviction of the poet by the Supreme Court. The judgment was questioned, and strong criticism was in particular expressed towards the Supreme Court judge which had presided the case. The Supreme Court judge filed an action against the applicant claiming an interference with his personality rights. The District Court found that the applicant had exceeded the limits of objective and acceptable criticism by using strong language and terms such as “shameful judgment”, “legal farce”, “strange reasoning” etc., and ordered him to publish an apology in the weekly and pay the judge compensation. The applicant appealed, and the Regional Court overturned the first instance judgment. This decision was quashed by the Supreme Court, and in a new decision the Regional Court this time upheld the judge’s claim, ordering the applicant to pay compensation but not obliging him to publish an apology. 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