CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 1999

.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 7 June 1999 Fuentes Bobo v. Spain (dec.) - 39293/98 Decision 1.6.1999 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Dismissal of TV employee for making disparaging comments about the management: admissible The applicant, who worked for a public television station, was the producer of a programme until December 1992, when it was taken off air. He then found himself without any defined duties yet under an obligation to attend work during the same hours as previously. In March 1993 he was given a disciplinary reprimand for poor time-keeping. In October 1993 he wrote an article in a major newspaper, vehemently criticising the way in which the station had been run since 1982 by a series of chief executives appointed by the party in government and lambasting the privatisation of the channel, which he accused the Government of carrying out in an underhand manner. In November 1993, he disseminated a leaflet at the station, complaining about the way in which he had been treated, repeating his criticisms of the station’s management and calling on his colleagues to support him. The station commenced disciplinary proceedings against him, as a result of which he was suspended without pay for a fixed period. (This penalty was declared unlawful and annulled in January 1996 by the High Court of Justice of Madrid). In November 1993 the applicant took part in a number of radio programmes in the course of which he was led by the interviewer’s questions to describe the station management as “leeches” and to express the opinion that “certain managers [did]n’t give a damn about the staff”. He was dismissed by the station but succeeded in having the dismissal set aside; however, the station appealed and the High Court of Justice of Madrid held that the dismissal had been valid. His lodged an amparo appeal but lost, as the Constitutional Court held that, in upholding freedom of expression, the Constitution was not guaranteeing a right to insult others (a reference to the value judgments expressed by the applicant in the radio programmes). Admissible under Articles 10 and 14.   © 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