CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mai 1998

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. May 1998 Schöpfer v. Suisse - 25405/94 Judgment 20.5.1998 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Disciplinary penalty imposed on lawyer following criticisms of the judiciary made at a press conference: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] Special status of lawyers gives them central position in administration of justice as intermediaries between public and courts – legitimate to expect them to contribute to proper administration of justice, and thus to maintain public confidence therein. Applicant first publicly criticised administration of justice in Hochdorf and then exercised a legal remedy which proved effective – conduct scarcely compatible with contribution it is legitimate to expect lawyers to make to maintaining public confidence in judicial authorities. Freedom of expression secured to lawyers too, who are entitled to comment in public on administration of justice, but their criticism must not overstep certain bounds – balance to be struck between various interests involved, which include public’s right to receive information about questions arising from judicial decisions, requirements of proper administration of justice and dignity of legal profession. General nature, seriousness and tone of complaints raised in public – applicant was lawyer – criminal proceedings still pending – competent authorities not first applied to via legal channels – modest amount of fine – margin of appreciation not exceeded. Conclusion : no violation (seven votes to two).   © 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