CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 juillet 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   372 20.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HRICO v. SLOVAKIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Hrico v. Slovakia (application no. 49418/99). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,250   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   780 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Andrej Hrico, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Košice, (Slovakia). At the relevant time he was the publisher and editor-in-chief of the weekly Domino efekt .   In 1994 and 1995 the weekly published three articles concerning an action in defamation that had been brought in the Slovakian courts by Mr Dušan Slobodník, a Minister who later became a Member of Parliament, against Mr Ľubomír Feldek, a writer who had published a statement alleging, among other things, that Mr Slobodník had a fascist past.   One article entitled “Slovakia is governed by an absolute legal chaos” consisted of an interview with the former president of the Constitutional Court, who was also Mr Feldek’s lawyer in the defamation proceedings. He expressed the view that Judge Š., who had presided over the chamber of the Supreme Court that had heard Mr Slobodník’s appeal, had reached his decision in the case well before judgment was delivered. Reference was also made to the fact that the judge’s name was on the list of candidates of a political party, the Christian-Social Union , which, according to Mr Feldek’s lawyer, had specific views on the period with which the case was concerned. Another of the articles was critical of the judgment “produced by Judge Š.”, which it described as a “legal farce” and went on to examine the prospects of an appeal to European Court of Human Rights succeeding. In September 1995 Judge Š. brought an action against the applicant under Article 11 et seq. of the Civil Code. He argued that the articles had damaged his reputation in his civil and professional life and undermined his authority as a Supreme Court judge.   Following various appeals, the case was remitted to the Košice Regional Court, which in a judgment of 11 March 1999, held that the terms used clearly showed that the purpose of the statements had been to offend, humiliate and discredit the person criticised and that Judge Š. was accordingly entitled to compensation for his loss. It ordered the applicant to pay 50,000   Slovakian korunas (approximately 1,125 euros) for non-pecuniary damage. An appeal on points of law, which Judge Š. lodged against that judgment, was dismissed.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 May 1999 and declared admissible on 16 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant alleged that his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that underlying both the interview and the impugned article was the fact that Judge Š. had been a political candidate for a party which had a clear and widely-known stance on the position taken by the Slovakian authorities during the period between 1939 and 1945. The view expressed or implied therein was that a judge who had made public his intention to become involved in politics and to support such a party should have withdrawn from defamation proceedings that directly concerned the alleged activities and fascist past of a former government minister. That had been expressly recognised in the judgment of the regional court in which it was noted that, where a judge failed to withdraw from a case in which the decision was linked to his political views, he deliberately exposed himself to the threat of criticism by the public. That, in the Court’s view, was to be seen as a value judgment on a matter of public interest. Admittedly, the terms used in the impugned article – in particular, the reference to a “legal farce” – were strong. The article had found that the article indicated that the judge had been responsible for the judgment, whereas it had been adopted by a panel of three judges. However, as had been acknowledged by the regional court, the limits of acceptable criticism were wider in respect of a judge who entered political life. Not only did the protection of Article 10 extend to opinions that could shock or offend, but journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration.   Considering the relevant texts as a whole, the Court found that it could not be said that the purpose of the statements in question had been to offend, humiliate and discredit the person criticised. Moreover, the judicial proceedings in which the criticised judge had been involved and which were commented upon in the articles related to an issue of general concern on which a political debate already existed.   In those circumstances, the Court found that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was not justified. The relatively small amount which the applicant had been ordered to pay to the plaintiff could not affect that position. Consequently, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.