CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 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 } .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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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 No. July 1997 Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 2) - 20834/92 Judgment 1.7.1997 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Freedom to impart ideas Journalist convicted of insulting a politician: 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.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION The judicial decisions challenged before the Court had to be considered in light of case as a whole, including article in question and circumstances in which it had been written - politician concerned clearly intended to be provocative and consequently to arouse strong reactions. Applicant's article: could be considered polemical, but did not on that account constitute gratuitous personal attack as he had provided an objectively understandable explanation, derived from speech of politician concerned, for using term complained of - constituted part of political discussion provoked by that speech and amounted to an opinion. Calling a politician a Trottel (idiot) in public might offend him - in instant case, however, word did not seem disproportionate to indignation knowingly aroused by politician concerned - article's polemical tone: protected by Article 10. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: claim allowed. B.   Costs and expenses: reimbursed on an equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sums (unanimously).   © 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