CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 31 janvier 2006

.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   52 31.1.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GINIEWSKI v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Giniewski v. France (application no. 64016/00).   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 finding against the applicant for defamation.   Since the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that no award should be made to him under Article 41 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Paul Giniewski, is a 79-year-old Austrian national who lives in Paris.   He is a journalist, sociologist and historian and states that he strives to promote closer relations between Jews and Christians in all his works.   On 4 January 1994 the newspaper Le quotidien de Paris   published an article by the applicant with the headline “The obscurity of error”, concerning the encyclical “The splendour of truth” issued by Pope John Paul II. The article contained a critical analysis of the Pope’s position and sought to develop an argument about the scope of a particular doctrine and its possible links with the origins of the Holocaust.   An association entitled “General Alliance against Racism and for Respect for the French and Christian Identity” ( Alliance générale contre le racisme et pour le respect de l’identité française et chrétienne – AGRIF) lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, the newspaper and its publishing director, Philippe Tesson, alleging that they had published racially defamatory statements against the Christian community. The defendants were found guilty of defamation at first instance but were acquitted on appeal.   Ruling on the civil claim, the Orléans Court of Appeal held that the applicant was to pay nominal damages of one franc to the AGRIF and that its ruling was to be published at his expense in a national newspaper. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation but without success.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 December 2000 and declared admissible on 7 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that the ruling against him had infringed his right to freedom of expression, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   The issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression could be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court observed that although the article by the applicant had criticised the Pope’s position, the analysis it contained could not be extended to Christianity as a whole, which was made up of various strands, several of which rejected papal authority.   The applicant had sought to develop an argument about the scope of a particular doctrine and its possible links with the origins of the Holocaust. In so doing he had made a contribution, which by definition was open to discussion, to a wide-ranging and ongoing ideological debate, without sparking off any controversy that was gratuitous or detached from the reality of contemporary thought.   By considering the detrimental effects of a particular doctrine, the article in question had contributed to discussion of the various possible reasons behind the extermination of Jews in Europe, a question of indisputable public interest in a democratic society. In such matters restrictions on freedom of expression were to be strictly construed. Although the issue raised in the present case concerned a doctrine upheld by the Catholic Church, and hence a religious matter, an analysis of the article in question showed that it did not contain attacks on religious beliefs as such, but a view which the applicant had wished to express as a journalist and historian. In that connection, the Court considered it essential in a democratic society that a debate on the causes of acts of particular gravity amounting to crimes against humanity should be able to take place freely.   While the article in question, as the applicant himself acknowledged, contained conclusions and phrases that might offend, shock or disturb some people, the Court reiterated that such views did not in themselves preclude the enjoyment of freedom of expression. The article in question had, moreover, not been “gratuitously offensive” or insulting and had not incited disrespect or hatred. Nor had it cast doubt in any way on clearly established historical facts.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the reasons given by the French courts could not be regarded as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.   With regard to the penalty imposed on the applicant, the Court noted that, after being acquitted in the criminal proceedings, in the civil action he had been ordered to pay one franc in damages to the AGRIF and, in particular, to publish a notice of the ruling in a national newspaper at his own expense. While the publication of such a notice did not in principle appear to constitute an excessive restriction on freedom of expression, the fact that it mentioned the criminal offence of defamation undoubtedly had a deterrent effect and the sanction thus imposed appeared disproportionate in view of the importance and interest of the debate in which the applicant had legitimately sought to take part.   The Court therefore 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)   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] 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.