CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 septembre 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   522 21.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MONNAT v. SWITZERLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Monnat v. Switzerland (application no. 73604/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant, and awarded Mr Monnat 3,500   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Daniel Monnat, is a Swiss national who was born in 1951 and lives in Geneva. He is a journalist with the SSR (Swiss Broadcasting Corporation).   On 6 and 11 March 1997 the SSR broadcast a critical documentary on the position of Switzerland during the Second World War on TSR (its channel for French-speaking Switzerland) during a news programme, entitled “ Temps présent ” (“present time”), for which the applicant was then responsible.   The documentary began by recalling the history of Switzerland during the Second World War, as the inhabitants at the time had supposedly experienced it and as that history had been taught for many years in schools. Switzerland had been portrayed as a courageous country, which, despite its neutrality, had been on the side of democracy and therefore of the Allies. The programme continued with harsh criticism of Switzerland’s position by public figures and with conflicting opinions expressed by Swiss citizens who had lived through the war. It then described the attitude of Switzerland and of its leaders, emphasising their alleged affinity with the far right and their penchant for a rapprochement with Germany. This was followed by an analysis of the question of anti-Semitism in Switzerland and of its economic relations with Germany, focussing on the laundering of Nazi money by Switzerland and on the role of Swiss banks and insurance companies in the matter of unclaimed Jewish assets. The programme aroused reactions from members of the public. Viewers’ complaints, within the meaning of section 4 of the Federal Broadcasting Act, were filed with the Independent Broadcasting Complaints Commission.   On 27 August 1999 the Complaints Commission held that the programme had breached broadcasting regulations, under section 4 of the Broadcasting Act, whereby news programmes were bound by a duty to report objectively in such a way as to reflect the plurality and diversity of opinion. That provision also stipulated that personal views should be identifiable as such. Consequently, the Complaints Commission found against the SSR and requested it to make good the breach by specific measures.   The SSR, Mr Monnat and a historian involved in the documentary applied to the Federal Court for an order setting aside the decision. The court found the applicant’s action inadmissible because he had not personally been a victim of the disputed decision. Moreover, the Federal Court dismissed the action by the SSR on the ground that the journalist had defended a single point of view in a harshly critical manner. The court did not impugn the programme’s content but the fact that the method used, namely politically committed journalism, had not been identified as such. It pointed out that particularly stringent rules of diligence applied to such journalism which had not been adhered to by the programme. In the Commission’s opinion the journalist should have informed viewers of the fact that the documentary did not impart absolute truths but rather gave a possible interpretation of relations between Switzerland and Germany.   In February 2001 the SSR informed the Complaints Commission of the measures taken, further to the decision of 27 August 1999, to make good the breach of the Broadcasting Act. In particular, the News Editors’ Conference had taken note of the relevant decisions and would take them into account when dealing with sensitive issues. Being satisfied with the measures, the Commission declared the proceedings closed.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 June 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), judges , and also Vincent Berger ,. Section   Registrar       3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that the programme scrutiny introduced by Swiss law and the decision of the Complaints Commission of 27 August 1999, upheld by the Federal Court on 21   November 2000, had hampered him in the exercise of his freedom of expression, as provided for by Article 10. He further claimed that he had not had a public hearing before the Swiss authorities, as required by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as to the inappropriateness of the programme scrutiny introduced by the Federal Broadcasting Act, because he was challenging general legal arrangements in abstract terms. However, in his capacity as a programme-maker he could claim to be the victim of a violation of the Convention because of the suspension of the sale of videotapes of the programme, which had been placed under a “legal embargo”.   The Court pointed out that the search for historical truth was an integral part of freedom of expression, but it considered that it was not called upon to settle the issue of the role actually played by Switzerland in the Second World War, which remained the subject of debate among historians.   The Court noted that the impugned programme had undoubtedly raised a question of major public interest, at a time when Switzerland’s role in the Second World War was a popular subject in the Swiss media and divided public opinion in that country.   As to the interest of the authorities in imposing sanctions on the programme, in the Court’s opinion the fact that complaints had been lodged by a number of viewers who had been displeased or surprised by the programme did not per se constitute a sufficient reason to justify taking measures. It noted in this connection that the offending programme had dealt with events of over 50 years earlier.   As regards the journalist’s duties and responsibilities, the Court was not convinced that the grounds given by the Federal Court had been “relevant and sufficient” to justify the admission of the complaints, even in the case of information imparted in a televised documentary on a state-owned television channel.   Lastly, as to the sanctions imposed in this case, the Court noted that whilst they had not prevented the applicant from expressing himself, the admission of the complaints had nonetheless amounted to a kind of censorship, which would be likely to discourage him from making criticisms of that kind again in future. In the context of debate on a subject of major public interest, such a sanction would be likely to deter journalists from contributing to public discussion of issues affecting the life of the community. By the same token, it was liable to hamper the media in performing their task as purveyor of information and public watchdog. Moreover, the censorship had subsequently taken on the form of a “legal embargo” on the documentary, enforced by a bailiff, thus formally prohibiting the sale of the product in question.   In those circumstances the Court considered that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 6 § 1   The Court declared this complaint inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies.     ***   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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.