CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   802 19.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RADIO TWIST, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of RADIO TWIST, a.s. v. Slovakia (application no. 62202/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The applicant company did not submit a claim for just satisfaction (Article 41). Accordingly, the Court considered that there was no call to award any sum on that account. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, RADIO TWIST, a.s., is a broadcasting company which was established in 1991 and has its registered office in Bratislava. At the relevant time the applicant company broadcast on five frequencies in Slovakia and had a daily audience of more than 400,000 listeners. Its broadcasts were based on the principles of democracy and independence.   On 12 June 1996 at 6 p.m., the applicant company broadcast, in the news programme “Journal”, the recording of a telephone conversation between the State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister which they had received from an unknown source. The recording was accompanied by a commentary by the applicant company’s commentator. The dialogue related to the power struggle in June 1996 between two groups each with a political background which had an interest in the privatisation of Slovenská poisťovňa, a.s . (SP), a major national insurance provider.   Secretary at the Ministry of Justice subsequently filed a civil action against the applicant company for protection of his personal integrity.   In a judgment delivered on 16 March 1999 the Bánovce nad Bebravou District Court ordered the applicant company to offer the plaintiff a written apology and to broadcast that apology within 15 days. The applicant company was further ordered to pay compensation for damage of a non-pecuniary nature as well as to reimburse his legal costs. Žilina Regional Court upheld that judgment on 22 February 2000.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20 July 2000 and declared admissible on 8 November 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant company complained that its right to impart information had been violated by the defamation decisions. It relied on Article 10.     Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court recalled that there was little scope in the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest. Moreover, the limits of acceptable criticism were wider as regards a public figure, such as a politician, than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly laid himself open to close scrutiny of his words and deeds by journalists and the public at large, and he had to consequently display a greater degree of tolerance.   The Court could not accept the domestic courts’ argument that the telephone conversation was private in nature and, therefore could not be broadcast. The telephone conversation in question was between two high ranking government officials, the State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice on the one hand and the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on the other. Furthermore the context and content of the conversation was clearly political and, as such, the Court’s special standard of tolerance established in the Convention case-law applied.   At the same time, the Court found that questions concerning management and privatisation of State-owned enterprises undoubtedly and by definition represented a matter of general interest. This was even more so in periods of political and economic transition.   The Court observed that the domestic courts attached decisive importance to the fact that the broadcast audio recording had been obtained by unlawful means. They concluded that the fact that such a recording had been broadcast constituted of itself a violation of the plaintiff's right to protection of his personal integrity. In connection with that argument the Court noted that at no stage was it alleged that the applicant company or its employees or agents were in any way liable for the recording or that its journalists transgressed the criminal law when obtaining or broadcasting it. It was also noted that no investigation into the circumstances of the making of the impugned audio recording had been carried out at the domestic level.   The Court found that it should further be noted that it was not established before the domestic courts that the recording contained any untrue or distorted information or that the information and ideas expressed in connection with it by the applicant company's commentator occasioned as such any particular harm to the plaintiff's personal integrity and reputation. As to the latter, it cannot be overlooked that after the impugned broadcast the plaintiff was elected a judge of the Constitutional Court and that his reputation did not seem to have been tarnished.   The Court further observed that the applicant company was sanctioned mainly for the mere fact of having broadcast information which someone else had obtained illegally. The Court was however not convinced that the mere fact that the recording had been obtained by a third person contrary to the law could deprive the applicant company which broadcast it of the protection of Article 10.   It followed that the reasons invoked for the interference in issue were too narrow and therefore insufficient.   The Court finally observed that there was no indication that the journalists of the applicant company acted in bad faith or that they pursued any objective other than reporting on matters which they felt obliged to make available to the public.   The Court found that it could not be concluded that by broadcasting the telephone conversation in question the applicant company interfered with the reputation and rights of the former the State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice in a manner justifying the sanction imposed on it. The interference with its right to impart information therefore neither corresponded to a pressing social need, nor was it proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It thus was not “necessary in a democratic society”.     ***   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.