CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 décembre 2009

.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. 130 May 2010 Aguilera Jiménez and Others v. Spain (referral) - 28389/06, 28955/06, 28957/06 et al. Judgment 8.12.2009 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Dismissal of trade unionists for offensive and humiliating publication: case referred to the Grand Chamber The six applicants, who worked as delivery men for a company where they were also trade union leaders, were dismissed following the publication in the trade union’s newsletter of a caricature and articles targeting the director of human resources and other employees. They challenged the decision to dismiss them. The employment tribunal found their dismissal justified because of the offensive nature of the publication, which had tarnished the honour and dignity of the persons concerned and overstepped the limits of freedom of expression. The appellate court upheld that decision in respect of four of the applicants, but found the dismissal of the other two employees unwarranted, for lack of evidence that they had been directly involved in the events, and the company was ordered to reinstate them or pay compensation. An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants was dismissed by the Supreme Court and their amparo appeal to the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible. In a judgment of 8 December 2009, in which only the complaints of those applicants who had not been successful before the Spanish courts were declared admissible and examined on the merits, a Chamber of the Court found by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article   10 of the Convention. It held that the Spanish courts had analysed in detail the events complained of, and had concluded that, on account of their seriousness and tone, the drawing and articles amounted to personal attacks that were offensive, intemperate, gratuitous and in no way necessary for the legitimate defence of the applicants’ interests. The applicants had exceeded the acceptable limits of the right of criticism. In so finding, the courts had weighed up the competing interests under national law and their decisions could not be considered unreasonable or arbitrary. The authorities had therefore not exceeded their discretion in penalising the applicants. On 10 May 2010 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.   © 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