CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 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 } .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   674 09.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LEEMPOEL & S.A. ED. CINE REVUE v. BELGIUM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Leempoel & S.A. ED. Cine Revue v. Belgium (application no. 64772/01).   The Court held unanimously 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 case concerns the withdrawal from sale and ban on distribution of an issue of the magazine Ciné Télé Revue which had published notes prepared by an investigating judge for a hearing before a parliamentary commission of inquiry.   The applicants are S.A. Editions Ciné Revue, a publishing company incorporated under Belgian law with its registered office in Brussels, and its magazine editor, Marcel Leempoel, an 81-year-old Belgian national who lives in Brussels.   In October 1996 the House of Representatives set up a parliamentary commission of inquiry to examine “the handling by the police and the judiciary of the investigation in the case of Dutroux, Nihoul and Others”. Ms. D., the investigating judge who had headed the judicial investigation into the abduction of two girls, gave evidence to the commission on 17 and 18 December 1996. Following the second hearing the chairman of the commission asked her to hand over the file she had brought with her in preparation. It contained a series of documents that she had clearly not been expecting to part with, including personal notes about her defence and recommendations from her lawyer as to how to communicate and conduct herself before the commission. After the file had been handed over, it was made available to members of the commission of inquiry, who were nonetheless obliged to consult it on the premises and were unable to make copies of it.   On 30 January 1997 the weekly magazine Ciné Télé Revue published an article containing lengthy extracts from the preparatory file which the judge had handed to the parliamentary commission of inquiry. The article was advertised on the front cover of the magazine by the headline “Exclusive – A surprising attitude: how Judge D. prepared her defence – Revelations from her file”, superimposed on a photograph of the judge. The disclosures received substantial press coverage.   On the same day, on an application by Judge D., the urgent-applications judge of the Brussels Court of First Instance ordered Mr Leempoel to take all necessary steps to remove every copy of the magazine from sales outlets within three hours after notification of the decision, imposed a penalty of approximately 250 euros (EUR) per copy for failure to comply, and prohibited him from subsequently distributing any copy featuring the same cover and the same article.   On 5 February 1997 the urgent-applications judge, on an appeal by the applicants, upheld the order and extended it to the company itself, holding that the documents that had been published were subject to the rules on confidentiality of parliamentary inquiries and that their publication appeared to have breached the right to due process and the judge’s right to respect for her private life. Brussels Court of Appeal likewise upheld the order, but in respect of Mr Leempoel alone. In a judgment of 29   June 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants.   In the meantime, Judge D., having obtained a bailiff’s official report of 31 January 1997 to the effect that copies of the magazine were to be found in a number of bookshops, secured an attachment against a bank account of the applicant company. In September 1997 Brussels Court of First Instance, finding that there was no evidence of actual sale or of failure to inform the newsagent of the magazine’s withdrawal, ordered the discharge of the attachment measure and the payment by Judge D. of approximately EUR 2,500 in damages to the applicant company.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 21 December 2000 and declared partly admissible on 2   March   2006, after a public hearing held in the Human Rights Building in Strasbourg.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Jean Claude Geus (Belgian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .         3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint The applicants complained that the ruling against them infringed Article 10 of the Convention. They further maintained that Article   25 of the Belgian Constitution, which forbids censorship of the press, afforded a greater degree of protection than Article 10 of the Convention and that its application should accordingly have been safeguarded by Article 53 (safeguard for existing human rights) of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 The Court noted that the applicants’ conviction constituted interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, that interference being prescribed by law and pursuing one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 § 2, namely the protection of the reputation or rights of others.   The Belgian courts had justified the withdrawal from circulation of the offending magazine on the ground that it interfered with Judge D.’s defence rights and with her right to respect for her private life, but also on the basis that the published documents were protected by the confidentiality of the parliamentary inquiry.   The Court found that it had not been unreasonable or arbitrary to consider that Judge   D.’s defence rights might be affected. It observed, in particular, that parliamentary commissions of inquiry in Belgium had far-reaching powers, and that testimony given to a commission could have repercussions for the position of the person appearing before it.   Moreover, the Court noted that the offending article dealt with a subject of public interest which had been widely discussed. The proceedings of the “Dutroux Commission” had contributed to a public debate which was well developed at the material time and was focused on the conduct of the Belgian authorities, and of the judicial authorities in particular, with regard to the investigations into the disappearance of children. However, it could not be considered that the article had served the public interest, not only because of its content but also because the commission’s hearings had been broadcast live and the public at large had thus been fully informed by other means.   Lastly, as regards the interference with private life, the Court found that the article in question contained criticism that was especially directed against the judge’s character. In that connection the Court observed in particular that the offending article included a copy of correspondence which was private, in the strictest sense, and which could not be regarded as contributing in any way to a debate of general interest to society. The applicants had not provided any serious grounds to justify their decision to publish this correspondence in full. In addition, the use of the file handed over to the commission of inquiry and the comments made in the article had revealed the very essence of the “system of defence” that the judge had allegedly adopted or could have adopted before the commission. The adoption of such a “system of defence”, however, belonged to the “inner circle” of a person’s private life and the confidentiality of such personal information had to be guaranteed and protected against any intrusion. In those circumstances, the Court found that the article in question and its distribution could not be regarded as having contributed to any debate of general interest to society, and considered that the grounds given by the Belgian courts to justify the applicants’ conviction were relevant and sufficient. Noting that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression was proportionate to the aim pursued, the Court considered that such interference could be seen as “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court accordingly found that there had been no violation of Article 10.   Article 53 The Court referred back to its finding that the interference in question had been “prescribed by law” and further observed that the decision to withdraw the magazine from circulation did not constitute a pre-publication measure but, having been taken under the urgent-applications procedure, sought to limit the extent of damage already caused. Accordingly, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 53 based on an alleged breach of Article 25 of the Belgian Constitution.     ***   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.