CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 août 1997

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .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 August 1997 Worm v. Austria - 22714/93 Judgment 29.8.1997 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Journalist's conviction for publishing an article considered capable of influencing outcome of criminal proceedings: 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.] I.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (SIX-MONTH RULE) Applicant entitled to written copy of Court of Appeal's judgment – long delay for service attributable to judicial authorities – judgment ran to over nine pages and contained detailed legal reasoning – in circumstances, object and purpose of Article 26 best served by counting six-month period from date of service of written judgment. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION Applicant's conviction constituted interference with his right to freedom of expression. A.   Whether interference was “prescribed by law” Convictions for “prohibited influence on criminal proceedings” have legal basis in domestic law (section 23 of Media Act) – application of that provision to applicant's case not beyond what could be reasonably foreseen in circumstances – impugned conviction was “prescribed by law”. B.   Whether interference pursued a legitimate aim Interference aimed at “maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” – Contracting States entitled to take account of considerations going to general protection of the fundamental role of courts in a democratic society – various reasons given for conviction fell within that aim – not necessary to examine separately whether interference aimed at protecting right to presumption of innocence. C.   Whether interference was “necessary in a democratic society” Reasons given for conviction were “relevant” with regard to aim pursued. Courts cannot operate in vacuum – there is room for discussion of subject matter of criminal trials in specialised journals, in general press or amongst public at large – reporting, including comment, on court proceedings contributes to their publicity in consonance with Article 6 § 1 requirement that hearings be public – particularly where a public figure is involved – limits of acceptable comment wider as regards a politician than as regards private individuals – public figures nonetheless entitled to enjoyment of fair-trial guarantees on same basis as every other person. Conviction in issue not directed against applicant's right to inform in an objective manner about public figure's trial but against unfavourable assessment of an element of evidence at the trial – applicant clearly stated opinion on accused's guilt – appellate court took into account impugned article in its entirety – article cannot be said to be incapable of warranting conclusion as to its potential for influencing outcome of trial. It was primarily for appellate court to evaluate likelihood that article would be read by at least the lay judges and to ascertain applicant's criminal intent – appellate court entitled to punish applicant's attempt to usurp courts' role. Interests of applicant and public in imparting and receiving ideas concerning matter of general concern not such as to outweigh considerations as to adverse consequences of diffusion of impugned article for the authority and impartiality of the judiciary in Austria – reasons adduced to justify interference also “sufficient”. Given amount of fine and fact that publishing firm was made jointly and severally liable for payment, sanction not disproportionate to aim. Applicant's conviction and sentence “necessary in a democratic society”. 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