CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; 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 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   669 07.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MAMÈRE v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mamère v. France (application no. 12697/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   As the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that no award should be made to him under Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Noël Mamère is a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Paris.   He is a leading member of the ecologist party Les Verts, a member of parliament and mayor of Bègles. He previously worked as a journalist and broadcaster, notably for the public television channel Antenne 2 from 1977 to 1992 as a newsreader.   In October 1999 the applicant took part in the television programme “ Tout le monde en parle ” (Everyone’s talking about it) presented by Thierry Ardisson. During the programme another guest mentioned the Chernobyl nuclear accident and spoke of the emotion he had felt on reading a book dedicated to the victims of the disaster; following on from this, the applicant mentioned a Mr Pellerin, the then director of the Central Service for Protection against Ionising Radiation (SCPRI), [2] describing him as a sinister character “who kept on telling us that France was so strong – the Asterix complex – that the Chernobyl cloud had not crossed our borders”.   Mr Pellerin brought proceedings directly against the applicant, the national television company France 2 and its publication director, Marc Tessier, in the Paris Criminal Court for   public defamation of a civil servant, an offence under sections 29 and 31 of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881.   On 11 October 2000 the court found Mr Tessier and the applicant guilty and ordered them, among other things, to pay a fine of 10,000 francs each (equivalent to 1,524.49 euros). Paris Court of Appeal, on an appeal by the applicant, upheld the conviction on 3 October 2001. It held that Mr Mamère’s comments were defamatory as they had damaged Mr Pellerin’s “honour and reputation” by accusing him of repeatedly having “knowingly supplied, in his capacity as a specialist on radioactivity issues, erroneous or simply untrue information about such a serious problem as the Chernobyl disaster, which was of potential consequence for the health of the French population”. It found that the applicant had not acted in good faith on the ground that he had not adopted a moderate tone in insisting forcefully and peremptorily that Mr Pellerin had repeatedly sought to lie while in full knowledge of the facts and had constantly distorted the truth. The court further considered that the applicant had attributed “pejorative   characteristics” to Mr   Pellerin by using the adjective “sinister” and by saying that he suffered from “the Asterix complex”.   On 22 October 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant, Mr Tessier and France 2.   Mr Pellerin was placed under formal investigation for “aggravated deception”   in May 2006 following a complaint against a person or persons unknown by certain individuals suffering from thyroid cancer, the Commission for Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD) and the French Association of Thyroid Disease Sufferers (AFMT), who had alleged that the official services had lied and had underestimated the contamination of soil, air and foodstuffs following the Chernobyl disaster.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 April 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .             3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint Relying on Article 10, the applicant complained of his conviction by the French courts for aiding and abetting public defamation of a civil servant.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 The Court observed that the applicant’s conviction for aiding and abetting public defamation of a civil servant had constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression that had been prescribed by the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881 and had pursued one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 § 2, namely the protection of the reputation of others.   The Court further noted that the case was one in which Article 10 required a high level of protection of the right to freedom of expression: firstly, the applicant’s comments had concerned topics of general concern, namely protection of the environment and of public health, and secondly, he had undoubtedly been speaking in his capacity as an elected representative committed to ecological issues, so that his comments were to be regarded as political or “militant” expression.   The Court reiterated that those who had been prosecuted on account of their comments on a matter of general concern should have the opportunity to absolve themselves of liability by establishing that they had acted in good faith and, in the case of factual allegations, by proving that they were true. In the applicant’s case the comments in question had been value judgments as well as factual allegations, so that the applicant should have been offered both those opportunities.   As regards the factual allegations, since the acts criticised by the applicant had occurred more than ten years previously, the 1881 Act barred him from proving that his comments were true. While in general the Court could see the logic of such a time bar, it considered that where historical or scientific events were concerned, it might on the contrary be expected that over the course of time the debate would be enriched by new information that could improve people’s understanding of reality.   Furthermore, the Court was not persuaded by the Court of Appeal’s reasoning concerning the applicant’s lack of good faith, seeing that it had been based entirely on the immoderate nature of his comments. The Court referred to its previous findings to the effect that those taking part in a public debate on a matter of general concern were entitled to make somewhat immoderate statements. Mr Mamère’s comments had admittedly been sarcastic but had remained within the limits of acceptable exaggeration or provocation and the Court did not regard them as manifestly insulting.   In its assessment the Court also had regard to the fact that the person criticised was a public official. However, at the time when the applicant had made the comments found to be defamatory, the SCPRI had no longer existed and Mr Pellerin had been 76 years old and no longer in active employment. Furthermore, the question of Mr Pellerin’s personal and “institutional” liability was an integral part of the debate on a matter of general concern, seeing that as director of the SCPRI he had had access to the measures being taken and had on several occasions made use of the media to inform the public of the level of contamination, or rather, one might say, the lack of it, within the territory of France.   In those circumstances, and having regard to the extreme importance of the public debate in which the comments in issue had been made, Mr Mamère’s conviction for defamation could not be said to have been proportionate and hence “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 10.   ***   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] The SCPRI, which was under the authority of the Ministries of Health and Labour, was responsible for, among other things, monitoring the level of contamination within the territory of France and alerting both ministries if any problems arose. It was replaced in 1994 by the Office for Protection against Ionising Radiation (OPRI). [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.