CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 décembre 2002

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 No. 48 December 2002 A. v. the United Kingdom - 35373/97 Judgment 17.12.2002 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Parliamentary immunity attaching to allegedly defamatory statements made by a Member of Parliament during a parliamentary speech: no violation Facts : During a parliamentary debate on municipal housing policy, the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the applicant lived mentioned her several times, giving her name and address. He referred to her as an example of “neighbours from hell” and indicated that she and her children were involved in various types of anti-social behaviour. The following day, two newspapers published articles based on a press release issued by the MP, the contents of which were substantially the same as those of his speech. The applicant, who denied the allegations, had to be re-housed after receiving hate mail and being subjected to abuse. Her solicitors wrote to the MP to outline her complaints but were informed that his remarks were protected by absolute parliamentary privilege. Law : Article 6 § 1 – It was unnecessary to settle the precise nature of the privilege, since the central issues of legitimate aim and proportionality which arose in relation to the applicant’s procedural complaint under Article 6 were the same as those arising in relation to her substantive complaint under Article 8 (respect for private life). The Court therefore proceeded on the basis that Article 6 was applicable. The parliamentary immunity enjoyed by the MP pursued the legitimate aims of protecting free speech in Parliament and maintaining the separation of powers. As to proportionality, while the broader an immunity the more compelling must be its justification, the fact that an immunity is absolute was not decisive. Freedom of expression is especially important for elected representatives and very weighty reasons must be advanced to justify interfering with that freedom. Most, if not all, signatory States to the Convention (including the eight States who made third party interventions) have some form of parliamentary immunity and privileges and immunities are also granted to members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. In the light thereof, a rule of parliamentary immunity could not in principle be regarded as imposing a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to court. Furthermore, the immunity enjoyed by MPs in the United Kingdom was in several respects narrower than that applicable in other States, in particular as it attached only to statements made in the course of parliamentary debates. The absolute immunity was designed to protect the interests of Parliament as a whole rather than those of individual MPs. Moreover, victims of defamatory statements were not entirely without means of redress, since they could seek through another MP to secure a retraction, while in extreme cases deliberately misleading statements might be punishable by Parliament as a contempt. In all the circumstances, the application of a rule of absolute privilege could not be said to exceed the margin of appreciation. While the allegations about the applicant were extremely serious and clearly unnecessary and the consequences were entirely foreseeable, these factors could not alter the conclusion as to the proportionality of parliamentary immunity. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). Article 6 § 1 – As to the unavailability of legal aid for defamation actions, since the MP’s parliamentary statements were covered by absolute privilege and the press reports were covered by qualified privilege, any legal proceedings in relation to them would have had no prospects of success. The Court therefore restricted its analysis to the unprivileged press release issued by the MP. The applicant was entitled to two hours’ free legal advice under the “Green Form” scheme and, after July 1998, could have engaged a solicitor under a conditional fee arrangement. While she would have remained exposed to a potential costs order if unsuccessful in legal proceedings, she would have been able to evaluate the risks in an informed manner if she had taken advantage of the “Green Form” scheme. In the circumstances, the unavailability of legal aid did not prevent her from having access to court. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). Article 8 – As the central issues were the same as those examined under Article 6, there had been no violation of this provision. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 – The complaints under Article 14 were identical to those already examined under Article 6. In any event, no analogy could be drawn between what was said in parliamentary debates and what was said in ordinary speech. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 13 – The Court was satisfied that the applicant had an arguable claim that Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 14 had been violated, but recalled that Article   13 does not guarantee a remedy allowing primary legislation to be challenged. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one).   © 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