CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   785 14.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Two Chamber judgments concerning Austria   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (application no. 76918/01) and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (No. 2) (no. 10520/02).   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, unanimously, in the case of Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria and, by six votes to one, in Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (No. 2) .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court made the following awards to Verlagsgruppe News GmbH: in the first case, 1,956.64 euros (EUR) and EUR 5,411.69 in respect of pecuniary damage and of costs and expenses and, in the second case, EUR 1,719.89 and EUR 4,363.64 in respect of pecuniary damage and of costs and expenses.   (The judgments are available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant company in both cases is Verlagsgruppe News GmbH, which owns and publishes News , a weekly Austrian magazine, and is based in Vienna.   Verlagsgruppe News GmbH In June 2000, during the Vienna International Festival ( Wiener Festwochen ), Mr   Schlingensief’s play “Container Action” was performed. The staging took place in a container and the actors, playing asylum seekers in Austria, were selected one-by-one for expulsion by the public. The play was heavily criticised by, among others, members of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ).   On 30 June 2000 the newspaper Kurier published an open letter in relation to the play written by the Austrian artist André Heller. One passage of the letter described certain FPÖ members as “spiritually depraved political upstarts” and as “dastardly”.   Subsequently FPÖ politicians quoted in this letter filed private prosecution proceedings for defamation against Mr   Heller, which they later withdrew. On 7 September 2000 News published an article about those proceedings with a photo showing, among others, Mr Westenthaler, one of the FPÖ politicians concerned. The article cited the above-mentioned passage from Mr Heller’s letter.     Mr Westenthaler subsequently filed a request for forfeiture of the 7   September 2000 issue of News . On 9 October 2000 St. Pölten Regional Court granted the request under section   33   §   2 of the Media Act and ordered the applicant company to pay the costs of the proceedings, having found that the article defamed Mr Westenthaler. The applicant company appealed unsuccessfully.   Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (No. 2) On 2 November 2000 an article appeared in News about pending investigations on suspicion of large scale tax evasion against Mr G., the managing director of a well-known enterprise producing pistols. A photograph of Mr G was printed with the article.   The report informed the reader that Mr G.’s premises had been searched in the early hours of 31 October. He was suspected of having failed to pay taxes of up to 500 million Austrian Schillings (more than 36 million euros).   The article also stated that News was in the possession of letters from Mr G.’s lawyers from which it followed that an attempt to murder Mr G. had taken place in Luxembourg in 1999, which had not come to the attention of the Austrian authorities or of the media at the time. The article suggested that the attempt might have been made at the instigation of one of Mr G.’s business partners and that it might have been linked to Mr G.’s network of companies which had been scrutinised by the tax authorities. The article also claimed that Mr G. had close links with the FPÖ.   Subsequently Mr G. brought proceedings under Section 78 of the Copyright Act against the applicant company, requesting that the latter be prohibited from publishing his picture in connection with reports both on the pending tax evasion proceedings against him and in relation to the attempted murder.   On 28 December 2000 Vienna Commercial Court issued a preliminary injunction against the applicant company prohibiting it from publishing a picture of the claimant in the context of reports on charges of tax evasion against him, in so far as he was not described as a suspect, but as having committed the offence, until a final decision had been taken in the main injunction proceedings.   On 10 July 2001 the Supreme Court widened the scope of the preliminary injunction to the extent that the applicant company was prohibited from publishing any pictures of the claimant in the context of reports on the tax evasion proceedings pending against him, irrespective of the accompanying text.     2.     Summary of the judgments [2]   Complaint   In both cases, the applicant company relied on Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 In both cases the Court found that there had been an interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, that the interferences at issue had a legal basis and that they pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation or rights of others.   However, the domestic courts restricted the applicant company’s freedom of expression while relying on reasons which could not be regarded as “relevant” and “sufficient”. They therefore went beyond what would have amounted to a “necessary” restriction on the applicant company’s freedom of expression. It followed that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in both cases.   In the case of Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria , Judges Jebens and Herndl each expressed a concurring opinion, which are annexed to the judgment.   In the case of Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (No. 2) , Judge Herndl expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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.