CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 août 1992

.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 } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; 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 No. August 1992 Schwabe v. Austria - 13704/88 Judgment 28.8.1992 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Freedom to hold opinions Politician’s conviction for defamation and for having reproached a person with an offence for which he had already served his sentence: 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 1.   Not disputed that interference with applicant's freedom of expression was "prescribed by law" and had legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. 2.   Assessment of the "necessity" of the interference in a "democratic society" in the light of the principles which emerge from the Court's previous case-law, in relation to the limits of acceptable criticism in the context of public debate on a political question of general interest - consideration of the impugned judicial decisions in the light of the case as a whole, including the publication in issue and its context. 3.   Applicant's press release: contributed to a general debate on political morals between two rival Austrian parties - mentioned only incidentally an old traffic accident for which a politician had been convicted and compared it with a recent one caused by another politician under the influence of alcohol - applicant had used substantially the same words as tribunal which pronounced conviction in first case. 4.   Domestic courts required applicant to prove the truth of his comparison of the two accidents only in relation to the consumption of alcohol by the two politicians concerned -applicant described both accidents in different terms but concluded that they warranted the resignation of both politicians - impugned comparison amounted to a value–judgment, for which no proof of truth is possible - applicant had not exceeded the limits of freedom of expression: facts at the basis of value–judgment substantially correct and his good faith did not raise serious doubts. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: applicant entitled to recover fine imposed and costs awarded against him in domestic proceedings, as closely related to violation - claim in respect of compensation awarded to politician disallowed, since damage sustained by owners of the newspaper. B.   Non-pecuniary damage: sufficiently compensated by the judgment. C.   Costs and expenses before the national courts and the Convention institutions - reimbursement of amounts sought. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sums to the applicant for pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses (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