CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 octobre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 156 October 2012 Szima v. Hungary - 29723/11 Judgment 9.10.2012 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Fine and demotion of police-union leader for allegations undermining police force: no violation   Facts – The applicant, a retired senior police officer, was at the material time the chairperson of Tettrekész Police Trade Union. In July 2009 she published a number of writings on the Trade Union’s website, which was effectively under her editorial control, concerning outstanding remuneration due to police staff, alleged nepotism and undue political influence in the force, and dubious qualifications of senior police staff. She was found guilty of instigation to insubordination, and sentenced to a fine and demotion. Law – Article 10 read in the light of Article   11: As the applicant was a trade-union leader Article   10 was interpreted in light of Article   11 of the Convention. The applicant’s sentence constituted interference with Article   10 that was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder or crime by preserving order in the armed forces. Article 10 applied to members of the armed forces just as it did to all other persons within the jurisdiction of the Contracting States. However, the proper functioning of the armed forces was hardly imaginable without legal rules designed to prevent servicemen from undermining discipline. When considering the applicant’s trade-union membership, the Court noted that trade-union members must be able to express to their employer their demands as to conditions of work as otherwise they would be deprived of an essential means of action. In the present case, many of the statements by the applicant brought up labour issues and so their sanctioning appeared questionable. However, she had also repeatedly put forward critical views about the manner in which police leaders managed the force. These had overstepped the mandate of a trade-union leader, as they were not at all related to the protection of labour-related interests of trade-union members. Therefore, they were considered from the general perspective of freedom of expression rather than from the particular aspect of trade-union-related expressions. Some of the statements by the applicant amounted to value judgments and so enjoyed a high level of protection under Article   10. However the Court shared the view of the domestic courts that the statements were capable of causing insubordination since they might discredit the legitimacy of police actions. While it was of serious concern that the domestic courts had refused to accept evidence from the applicant on some of the material, the applicant had failed to relate her offensive value judgments to the facts. Further, by virtue of her position, the applicant had considerable influence and therefore had to exercise her right to freedom of expression in accordance with the duties and responsibilities which that right carried with it in view of her status and of the special requirement of discipline in the police force. The relatively mild sanction imposed on the applicant – demotion and a fine – could not be regarded as disproportionate in the circumstances. 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