CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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   640 24.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TOURANCHEAU AND JULY v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment in the case of Tourancheau and July v. France (application no. 53886/00).   The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Patricia Tourancheau and Serge July, are French nationals, aged 46 and 62, who live in Paris.   On 28 October 1996 the national daily newspaper Libération , of which Mr July is editor, published an article by Ms Tourancheau entitled “Adolescent love ends in stabbing”, about the murder of a young girl stabbed to death in May 1996. The criminal investigation was still pending at the time and the two suspects, a young man, B. (then aged 19) and his girlfriend, A. (then aged 17), had been placed under investigation. Each accused the other of the crime, but the young man had been released while his girlfriend was in pre ‑ trial detention.   The article described the circumstances of the murder and the relationship between the two suspects before it had taken place. In particular, it reproduced extracts from statements made by A. to the police and the investigating judge, and comments from B. contained in the case file or noted down during the interview he had given to Ms Tourancheau.   On the basis of section 38 of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants for publishing documents in the case file ahead of the proceedings in open court. The applicants did not dispute the fact that, with a few exceptions, the quotations and transcripts were identical to those in the case file. However, Ms Tourancheau maintained that she had never seen the case file and had copied the extracts taken from the hearings and the court papers from notes made by B. based on the file.   The applicants were found guilty as charged at first instance and were each ordered to pay a fine of 10,000 French francs (FRF), equivalent to approximately 1,524.49 euros (EUR). Their conviction was upheld on appeal, although payment of the fine was suspended. In a judgment of 22 June 1999 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicants.   In the meantime, on 10 June 1998, A. had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for murder and B. had received a five-year prison sentence for failure to assist a person in danger.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 December 1999 and declared admissible on 2 October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   Relying on Article 10 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, the applicants contended that their criminal conviction had infringed their right to freedom of expression.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court noted that the applicants’ conviction amounted to an interference with their right to freedom of expression.   The applicants had been convicted on the basis of section 38 of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881 which, having been published, could be considered to be accessible. Furthermore, the applicants could not have been unaware of the provision in question. Ms Tourancheau had admitted during the proceedings that she was familiar with the 1881 Act, while Mr July had been prosecuted on the basis of the same provision a short time before publication of the article in issue.   The Court noted that section 38 of the 1881 Act defined the scope of the legal prohibition clearly and precisely, in terms of both content and duration, as it was designed to prohibit publication of any documents relating to proceedings concerning serious crimes or other major offences until the day of the hearing. Furthermore, it had been established by case ‑ law that the prohibition extended to extracts from such documents. The provision therefore formed an integral part of the law in force relating to the press.   In those circumstances the applicants, who were professional journalists, should have been familiar with the applicable legislation and case ‑ law, and could have sought advice from specialist lawyers. The fact that proceedings were not brought systematically on the basis of section 38 of the 1881 Act, the matter being left to the discretion of the public prosecutor’s office, did not entitle the applicants to assume that they were in no danger of being prosecuted, since they were familiar with the law – or at least the underlying principles – as demonstrated, moreover, by the footnotes which they had taken the precaution of appending to the article in issue. They had therefore been in a reasonable position to foresee that publication of extracts from the case file in the article might render them liable to prosecution. Consequently, the interference in question could be regarded as being “prescribed by law”.   The Court considered that the aims of the interference had been to protect “the reputation and rights of others” and to maintain “the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.   It remained for the Court to determine whether the interference complained of had been “necessary in a democratic society”. In that connection it noted that, while the pending investigation had not made any findings as to the guilt of A. or B., the article had backed the version of events given by B., who had been interviewed by the applicant, to the detriment of the version supplied by A., a minor being held in custody.   In the Court’s view, the reasons given by the French courts to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been “relevant and sufficient” for the purposes of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. The courts had stressed the damaging consequences of publication of the article for the protection of the reputation and rights of A. and B. and for their right to be presumed innocent, and also for the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, owing to the possible impact of the article on the members of a lay jury. The Court took the view that the applicants’ interest in imparting information concerning the progress of criminal proceedings and the guilt of the suspects while the judicial investigation was still ongoing, and the interest of the public in receiving such information, were not sufficient to prevail over the considerations referred to by the courts.   The Court further considered that the penalties imposed on the applicants were not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by the authorities.   In those circumstances, the Court held that the applicants’ conviction had amounted to an interference with their right to freedom of expression which had been “necessary in a democratic society” in order to protect the reputation and rights of others and to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. It therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 10.   Article 10 taken in conjunction with Article 14   The applicants considered themselves to have been the victims of an arbitrary and discriminatory measure, within the meaning of Article 14, in that they were the only people to have been prosecuted on the basis of section 388 of the 1881 law for a very long time, which was not in line with established practice. Noting that that complaint had first been raised in March 2002 in the context of the applicants’ observations in reply, the Court   declared it inadmissible, as being out of time.   Judges Costa, Tulkens and Lorenzen expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is 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)   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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.