CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 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 53 May 2003 Skałka v. Poland - 43425/98 Judgment 27.5.2003 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for insulting judges in a letter: violation Facts : While serving a prison sentence, the applicant wrote to the President of the Regional Court to complain about a judge who had replied to an earlier letter he had written. The applicant used terms such as “irresponsible clowns” and “cretin”. He was convicted of insulting a State authority, namely all the judges of the Division referred to as well as an unidentified individual judge. He was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. His appeals were unsuccessful. Law : Article 10 – The courts are not immune from criticism and scrutiny but a clear distinction must be made between criticism and insult. If the sole intent is to insult a court or its members, an appropriate punishment would not in principle constitute a violation of Article 10. The applicant clearly used insulting words and the tone of his letter as a whole was derogatory. Moreover, he did not formulate any concrete complaints. However, the nature and severity of the penalty are important factors and the prison sentence imposed was a harsh measure, in particular taking into account that the applicant had not previously been convicted of such an offence. In the circumstances, the interest protected was important enough to justify limitations on freedom of expression and an appropriate sentence would not amount to a violation. The actual sentence in the present case was, however, disproportionately severe, exceeding the seriousness of the offence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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