CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 avril 2010

.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. 129 April 2010 Haguenauer v. France - 34050/05 Judgment 22.4.2010 [Section V] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of elected representative for her response to remarks made by public servant at demonstration on a particularly sensitive national issue: violation   Facts – In 2002 the applicant, who was then deputy mayor, took part in a demonstration that took place when the chancellor of a university in the city was awarded the Légion d’honneur . The demonstrators claimed that the chancellor had shown an indulgent attitude towards the racist and revisionist positions defended by some of the university’s teaching staff. One of the university lecturers shouted at the demonstrators, telling them that what they were saying was scandalous and that he was proud to be Jewish and proud to be at the university in question. The applicant, herself of Jewish faith, replied: “You put the community to shame.” The lecturer brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and another councillor for publicly insulting a civil servant. In 2003 the court held that the criminal limb of the offence was covered by an Amnesty Act and dismissed the claim for damages under the civil limb of the claim. In 2004 the court of appeal set aside that judgment and ordered the applicant to pay damages. It found that the remarks made by the applicant had been aimed at the lecturer in his capacity as a member of the university teaching staff, and thus as a representative of the administration. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. Law – Article 10: The applicant’s conviction for insulting a civil servant amounted to an interference with the exercise of her right to freedom of expression that was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely, the protection of the reputation of others. With regard to determining whether the measure was necessary in a democratic society, the Court observed that the person in issue here, in his capacity as a university lecturer, was subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary individuals because he had been exercising his official functions. In this case Article   10 required a high level of protection of the right to freedom of expression on two grounds: the applicant’s remarks had related to matters of public concern (combating racism and revisionism) and had been uttered in the context of an extremely important public debate (the university authorities’ attitude to lecturers who had aroused controversy for the views they defended), and the applicant had made the remarks in her capacity as local councillor, so they had been a form of political or militant expression. In those circumstances, the latitude available to the authorities in assessing the need to convict the applicant was particularly limited. Anyone engaging in a public debate concerning matters of general interest had to be able to have recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. Moreover, the lecturer’s incisive remarks could have influenced the tone used when replying to him. Furthermore, the remarks in question had been made orally, during a demonstration, as part of a swift and spontaneous exchange of words between the applicant, the lecturer and another person, which had made it impossible for Mrs   Haguenauer to rephrase, modify or withdraw them. Lastly, and above all, it was of crucial importance to resituate Mrs   Haguenauer’s remarks in the context of a debate which had then been raging at the university and had even spread to national level. This was evidenced by the Ministry of Education’s decision to set up a commission of historians to study the issue and by the commission’s report, which had defined the issue as one of public and general scope. Lastly, the Court took note of an amnesty that had been passed in 2002 and had extinguished the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Thus only the civil action had continued, which had ended with an order to pay the civil party EUR   3,000 in damages. Accordingly, the applicant’s conviction for publicly insulting a civil servant could not be regarded as proportionate and therefore necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   © 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