CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 octobre 2005

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   573 27.10.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags Gmbh v. Austria (application no. 58547/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company and under Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarded 9,103.02   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   5,364.60 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH, is a limited liability company based in Vienna which owns and publishes the weekly magazine Profil .   In November 1998 Profil published a review of a book called “The Antifa-Complex” written by a Member of the European Parliament and member of the Austrian Freedom Party. The article criticised the author of the book for his treatment of Jörg Haider, the former leader of the Austrian Freedom Party, in that he pardoned “his belittlement of the concentration camps as ‘punishment camps’” in the book.   The following month Mr Haider filed successful compensation claim against Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags under the Media Act. In July 1999 Wiener Neustadt Regional Court ordered the applicant company to pay 50,000 Austrian schillings (ATS – approximately 3,633 euros) in compensation to Mr Haider and to pay his costs. It ordered the forfeiture of that particular issue of the magazine and instructed the company to publish its judgment.   In its reasoning the court said that Mr Haider’s words had been taken out of context and that the article gave the impression that he had played down the extent of crimes committed in concentration camps when using the term punishment camps, and that he had thereby infringed Sections 3g and 3h of the National Socialism Prohibition Act. The applicant company appealed unsuccessfully.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 May 2000 and declared admissible on 22 June 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Anatoly Kovler , (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant company complained that the courts’ judgments ordering payment of compensation, publication of judgment and forfeiture of the relevant issue of Profil violated its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court was not convinced by the domestic courts’ argument that the statement in the article regarding the belittlement of the concentration camps came close to accusing Mr   Haider of criminal behaviour in contravention of the National Socialism Prohibition Act. The Court found that conclusion somewhat far-fetched, as the standards for assessing someone’s political opinions were quite different from the standards for assessing an accused’s responsibility under criminal law.   The Court agreed with the parties that the statement at issue was a value judgment. The parties disagreed however on whether the applicant had provided a sufficient factual basis for its allegations. In that respect the Court noted that the necessity to provide the facts underlying a value judgment was less stringent where those facts were already known to the general public. It found that the use of the term “punishment camp”, which implied that people were detained there for having committed punishable offences, might reasonably be criticised as a belittlement of the concentration camps if that term was applied by someone whose ambiguity towards the Nazi era was well-known. The undisputed fact that Mr Haider had used the term punishment camp instead of concentration camp was a sufficient factual basis for the applicant’s statement, which was therefore not excessive in the circumstances.   The Court reiterated that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider as regards a politician than as regards a private individual. Mr Haider was a leading politician who had been known for years for his ambiguous statements about the National Socialist Regime and the Second World War and had, therefore exposed himself to fierce criticism inside Austria and at European level.   In conclusion, the Court found that the reasons adduced by the domestic courts were not relevant and sufficient to justify the interference. Moreover, the Court noted that the applicant was not only ordered to pay compensation to Mr Haider and to publish the judgment finding it guilty of defamation, but that the courts also ordered the forfeiture of the issue of Profil which was a severe and intrusive measure and a disproportionate interference.   Consequently, the interference complained of was not “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2.     ***   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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.