CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 avril 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   223 18.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ROSEIRO BENTO v. PORTUGAL   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (application no. 29288/02).   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 found unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), it awarded him 1,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 7,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Carlos Fernandes Roseiro Bento, is a 51-year-old Portuguese national who lives in Vagos (Portugal). A doctor by profession, he was at the material time mayor of the town of Vagos, having been elected as a member of the People’s Party (CDS-PP).   In April 1996, during a council meeting, a heated exchange took place between the applicant and P.M., a town councillor and member of the Social Democratic Party (PSD). P.M. complained, among other things, of the way the town was being run, saying that a town could not be run like a grocer’s or a doctor’s surgery. He added that he found it unacceptable to see local residents treated like “puppets” and subjected to the “personality cult” the applicant sought to foster. In reply, Mr Roseiro Bento described P.M. as “politically autistic”, accusing him of “nasty, premeditated, Machiavellian-style betrayal” in the political sphere and characterising his remarks as “obnoxious tittle tattle”.   P.M. lodged a complaint and the applicant was charged with insulting behaviour. Under the Amnesty Act (Law no. 29/99) of 12 May 1999, the investigating judge discontinued the proceedings in June 1999. Ruling on the claim for damages submitted by P.M., the Vagos Criminal Court, in a judgment of 22 February 2001, ordered Mr Roseiro Bento to pay 200,000 Portuguese escudos (approximately EUR 1,000).   The applicant appealed. In a judgment of 20 June 2001 the Coimbra Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that, by law, no appeal could be made against such an amount. The applicant also lodged a constitutional appeal, which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 27 February 2002.   The applicant stood for election as a CDS-PP candidate in the municipal elections of December 2001. He was not re-elected, and the PSD candidate became mayor of Vagos.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 July 2002 and declared partly admissible on 30 November 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant contended that the judgment against him had infringed his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   The Court considered that the judgment against the applicant amounted to interference with his right to freedom of expression.   As to the background to the case, it noted that the two councillors had been discussing the running of the town of Vagos by the applicant, who was mayor of the town. The applicant’s position as mayor was an important factor in the case. Where P.M. was concerned, the Court noted that, as an opposition councillor, he had been acting in his capacity as a politician. In that connection the Court reiterated that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider as regards a politician acting in his capacity as a public figure than as regards a private individual.   Following his own polemical remarks, P.M. might have expected a corresponding reaction from the applicant. The Court accepted that Mr Roseiro Bento had used language towards his political opponent which had been provocative and, to say the least, lacking in refinement. However, political invective was apt to become personal in tone; that was one of the hazards of political life and free debate that acted as the guarantors of democratic society. Taken in context, the expressions used could hardly be regarded as excessive, particularly in view of the equally virulent remarks made by the plaintiff. It also had to be borne in mind that the remarks in question had been made in the course of a spoken debate, so that the applicant had had no opportunity of rephrasing, refining or withdrawing them before they became public.   The Court further noted that the remarks had been made during a meeting of the town council. While they were not covered by any kind of parliamentary immunity, there was no doubt that they had been made in a forum which was at least comparable to Parliament in terms of the interest to society of safeguarding freedom of expression. In a democracy, Parliament and similar bodies were vital forums for political debate. Any interference with the freedom of expression exercised therein could therefore be justified only for compelling reasons; no such reasons existed in the present case.   Lastly, while it was true that, following the amnesty, the applicant had not ultimately been subjected to a criminal penalty, he had none the less been ordered to pay damages to the plaintiff. In that connection the Court reiterated that what mattered was not the minor nature of the penalty, but the fact that judgment had been given against the applicant, albeit in a civil context.   In conclusion the Court found that, while the reasons adduced by the Portuguese courts for giving judgment against the applicant could be regarded as having been relevant, they had not been sufficient, nor had they corresponded to a pressing social need. As the judgment against Mr   Roseiro Bento had not been reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, 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 ).   Press contacts 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)   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. [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.