CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juin 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 54 June 2003 Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland (dec.) - 55120/00 Decision 19.6.2003 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Level of award made by jury in libel case against media group: admissible In December 1992, a national newspaper owned by the applicant published an article about the political negotiations that were taking place at that time to form a new government. The article linked one political leader to criminal activities and suggested he supported violent communist oppression and was anti-Semitic. In subsequent legal proceedings, a High Court jury found that the politician had been libelled. The trial judge provided the jury with some general guidance on the question of damages, drawing on previous examples in Irish case law. However, neither he nor counsel could suggest an amount, which was entirely up to the jury. Following deliberation, the jury assessed damages at 300,000 IEP, three times higher than the previous maximum award. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the Irish common law was not inconsistent with either the constitutional guarantee of free speech or Article 10 of the Convention, since the principle of proportionality applied to jury awards. If these were found on appeal to be disproportionate, they would be set aside. For a judge to suggest figures to the jury would be an unjustifiable invasion into the domain of the latter. Each libel case was different and juries must have regard to its particular features. The court found that the amount awarded was not disproportionate to the injury suffered. One member of the court dissented, arguing that if the trial judge could give guidelines as to the level of damages, it would aid juries in their task without impinging on their exclusive competence to determine whether libel had been committed. She considered that the award should be reduced by half. 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