CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 décembre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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   763 7.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ÖSTERREICHISCHER RUNDFUNK v. AUSTRIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (application no. 35841/02).   The Court held unanimously: that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant 6,711.63   euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 17,147.33 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Österreichischer Rundfunk is a public broadcasting corporation with its seat in Vienna.   In July 1999 the applicant broadcast information on the evening news of its regional television channel about the release on parole of the Head of the neo-Nazi organisation VAPO [2] , who had been sentenced under the National Socialist Prohibition Act. The news item also mentioned his deputy, who had previously been convicted under the same Act and had been released on parole five weeks earlier. During the broadcast, a picture of the deputy at his trial was shown for a couple of seconds.   The deputy successfully brought proceedings under Section 78 of the Copyright Act. The courts prohibited the applicant from showing the deputy’s picture in connection with any report stating that he had been convicted under the Prohibition Act once the sentence had been executed or once he had been released on parole.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 September 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the courts’ decisions violated its right to freedom of expression. The applicant further complained that the contested injunction prohibited it from publishing the picture while other media remained free to do so. It relied on Articles 10 and 14.   Decision of the Court   Admissibility The Government contested the applicant’s standing within the Convention proceedings as it maintained that the applicant did not qualify as a non-governmental organisation. The Court however found that the Austrian legislator had devised a framework which ensured the applicant’s editorial independence and its institutional autonomy. Consequently, it concluded that the broadcasting corporation did qualify as a non-governmental within the meaning of Article 34 (individual applications) of the Convention and was therefore entitled to lodge an application.     The Court then unanimously declared the application admissible.   Article 10 The Court reiterated its view that the press and more generally the media had a duty to impart – in a manner consistent with their obligations and responsibilities – information and ideas on all matters of public interest.   It also noted that the party who brought the proceedings against the broadcaster, was a well-known member of the neo-Nazi movement in Austria and, as such, laid himself open to public scrutiny. Moreover, he was convicted of crimes in proceedings which the domestic courts considered to be among the most important under the Prohibition Act.   At the time of his trial his picture was widely published.   As to the injunction granted by the Austrian courts, the Court found that it was phrased in broad terms, prohibiting the applicant from showing the picture in connection with any text mentioning his conviction. It also noted that great weight was attached to the length of time which had elapsed since the deputy’s conviction, but no particular attention was paid to the fact that he had been recently released.   The Court also noted that the courts failed to take into account such important points as the deputy’s notoriety and the political nature of the crime of which he had been convicted.   The Court further referred to the fact that the injunction only applied to the applicant and that other media remained free to publish the deputy’s picture in the same context.   In sum the Court found that the reasons adduced by the domestic courts were not relevant and sufficient enough to justify imposing the injunction. It accordingly concluded that the interference with the applicant’s rights could not be considered necessary in a democratic society and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 14 Having regard to the finding relating to Article 10 the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 14.     ***   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 Volkstreue Ausserparlamentarische Opposition (VAPO) is an organisation dedicated to the destruction of the Austrian constitutional order. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.