CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 décembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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   644 17.12.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CUMPĂNĂ AND MAZĂRE v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing a judgment [1] in the case of Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania (application no. 33348/96).   The Court held:   unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the severity of the penalties imposed on the applicants; by sixteen votes to one that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and that the remainder of their claim for just satisfaction should be dismissed.   (The judgment is available in English and in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Constantin Cumpănă and Radu Mazăre, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1968 respectively and live in Constanţa (Romania). They are both journalists by profession. Mr Mazăre is mayor of Constanţa.   In April 1994 the applicants published an article in the Telegraf newspaper, of which Mr   Mazăre was the editor, questioning the legality of a contract in which Constanţa City Council had authorised a commercial company, Vinalex, to perform the service of towing away illegally parked vehicles. The article, which appeared under the headline “Former Deputy Mayor D.M. and serving judge R.M. responsible for series of offences in Vinalex scam”, was accompanied by, among other things, a cartoon showing the judge, Mrs R.M., on the former deputy mayor’s arm, carrying a bag marked “Vinalex” containing banknotes.   Mrs R.M., who had signed the contract with Vinalex on behalf of the city council while employed by the council as a legal expert, brought proceedings against the applicants. She submitted that the cartoon had led readers to believe that she had had intimate relations with the former deputy mayor, despite the fact that they were both married. On 17 May 1995 the applicants were convicted of insult and defamation and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment; they were also disqualified from exercising certain civil rights and prohibited from working as journalists for one year. In addition, they were ordered to pay Mrs R.M. a specified sum for non-pecuniary damage. An appeal by the applicants was dismissed.   The Procurator-General applied to the Supreme Court of Justice to have the judgments in question quashed, submitting that the offence of insult had not been made out, that the amount of damages awarded to Mrs R.M. had been too high and that there had been no justification for prohibiting the applicants from practising their profession. In a final judgment of 9 July 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed the application.   In November 1996 the applicants were granted a presidential pardon dispensing them from having to serve their prison sentence. Mr Mazăre continued to work as editor of Telegraf , while Mr Cumpănă was transferred to another company and was dismissed in 1997 on account of staff cutbacks.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23 August 1996 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared partly admissible on 10 September 2002. In a Chamber judgment of 10 June 2003 the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   On 3 December 2003 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted a request by the applicants for the case to be referred to the Grand Chamber. [2] A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 1 September 2004.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian) Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), John Hedigan (Irish), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), András Baka (Hungarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10, the applicants complained that their freedom of expression had been infringed on account of their criminal conviction following the publication of the article.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the article in question had contributed to a debate on a matter of interest to the local community which the applicants had been entitled to bring to the public’s attention through the press. It appeared in the light of the article as a whole, including the accompanying cartoon, that the statements about Judge R.M. had contained allegations of specific conduct on her part, namely that she had been complicit in the signing of illegal contracts and had accepted bribes. Such statements had suggested to readers that Mrs R.M. had behaved in a dishonest and self-interested manner, and had been likely to create the impression that the “fraud” of which she and the former deputy mayor had been accused and the bribes they had allegedly accepted were established and uncontroversial facts.   The Court pointed out in this connection that while the press had a duty to inform the public about presumed misappropriation on the part of local elected representatives and public officials, the fact of directly accusing specified individuals by mentioning their names and positions gave rise to an obligation to provide a sufficient factual basis. It further reiterated that, when exercising their freedom of expression, journalists were required to act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. That had not been the case in this instance.   The Romanian courts had found that the applicants’ allegations against Mrs R.M. had presented a distorted view of reality and had not been based on actual facts. It was clear from the domestic proceedings that the applicants had been given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence. Another factor of some significance was their conduct during the criminal proceedings against them. They had displayed a clear lack of interest in their trial, failing to attend the hearings, to state grounds for their appeal and to adduce evidence to substantiate their allegations or provide a sufficient factual basis for them.   In conclusion, the Court considered in the circumstances of the case that the Romanian authorities had been entitled to consider it necessary to restrict the exercise of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and that their conviction for insult and defamation had accordingly met a “pressing social need”.   However, the Court observed that the sanctions imposed on the applicants had been very severe. In regulating the exercise of freedom of expression so as to ensure adequate protection by law of individuals’ reputations, States should avoid taking measures that might deter the media from fulfilling their role of alerting the public to apparent or suspected misuse of public power.   The imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence was compatible with journalists’ freedom of expression only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights had been seriously impaired, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence. In a classic case of defamation, such as the present case, imposing a prison sentence inevitably had a chilling effect.   Furthermore, the order disqualifying the applicants from exercising certain civil rights, which in Romanian law was a secondary penalty imposed automatically, had been particularly inappropriate in their case and had not been justified by the nature of the offences for which they had been held criminally liable.   As regards the order prohibiting the applicants from working as journalists for one year, it had been particularly severe and could not in any circumstances have been justified by the mere risk of their reoffending. The imposition of such a preventive measure of general scope, albeit subject to a time-limit, had contravened the principle that the press must be able to perform the role of a public watchdog in a democratic society.   The Court accordingly considered that, although the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression might have been justified, the criminal sanction and the accompanying prohibitions imposed on them by the Romanian courts had been manifestly disproportionate in their nature and severity to the legitimate aim pursued by the applicants’ conviction for insult and defamation. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Judge Cabral Barreto expressed a concurring opinion, joined by Judges Ress and Bîrsan. Judge Costa expressed a partly dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.   ***   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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] 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. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.