CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 janvier 2007

.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   56 23.01.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ALMEIDA AZEVEDO v. PORTUGAL   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Almeida Azevedo v. Portugal (application no. 43924/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression).   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 5,150.86 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 7,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Elisio de Almeida Azevedo, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1930 and lives in Arouca (Portugal). At the material time he was the chairman of the Arouca section of the Social-Democratic Party, the main opposition party on the Arouca Town Council.   In 1999 Arouca was divided by a controversy about the construction and proposed route of a new road to link the town to several other major arterial roads in northern Portugal. The applicant and certain associations opposed the route chosen, arguing that it was liable to damage the environment.   The Socialist Party mayor of Arouca criticised the applicant’s position in an article which he published in the regional newspaper Roda Viva . The mayor, who was due to meet the President of the Portuguese Road Institute, also signed a leaflet urging the townspeople to demonstrate in front of the town hall to show their support for the construction of the new road.   On 10 December 1999, on the day before the meeting and demonstration were due to take place, the applicant published an article in the regional newspaper Defesa de Arouca . The article was entitled “Shame” and severely criticised the leaflet distributed a few days earlier, describing the mayor as a liar and manipulator.   The mayor lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the applicant had libelled him and joining the proceedings as a civil party. On 13 November 2001 Arouca Court of First Instance found the applicant guilty of libel, sentenced him to pay 180 day-fines and awarded the mayor EUR 10,000 in compensation. It held that the article complained of, taken as a whole, was offensive to the complainant and that, notwithstanding the political content of the controversy, the applicant’s comments had been excessive. The applicant appealed.   On 12 June 2002 Porto Court of Appeal allowed the part of the appeal concerning the award of damages, which it reduced to EUR 4,000, and upheld the remainder of the decision of the court below. It held that the offending remarks were undeniably libellous and that their truth could not be proved because they were value judgments.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 12 December 2002 and declared admissible on 15   March   2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that his conviction for libel had infringed his right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 The Court noted that the applicant’s conviction amounted to interference with his right to freedom of expression, that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely protection of the reputation or rights of others.   As to whether the interference could be considered necessary in a democratic society, the Court took the context of the case into account. In that connection it noted that the controversy clearly concerned a matter of public interest. It was also necessary to take account of the fact that the complainant was the town’s mayor, who had entered the debate as a politician, so that the limits of permissible criticism were wider for him than for a private individual.   As regards the content of the offending article, the Court accepted that the applicant had used language which was provocative and at the very least inelegant with respect to his political opponent. However, as it had already had occasion to point out, in that context, political invective often spilled over onto the personal level. Those were the hazards of political life and the free interchange of ideas, the guarantors of a democratic society. Taken as a whole, the remarks complained of could hardly be regarded as excessive, especially if regard was had to the equally virulent declarations of the complainant, who on several occasions had strongly criticised the applicant in the regional press, and to the highly polemical nature of the controversy between the two men regarding the construction of the road.   Lastly, the Court noted that the Portuguese courts had refused to examine the applicant’s defence of justification, concerning certain facts about the publication of the leaflet, thus missing the opportunity to form a more complete and precise picture of the events which had led to the offending remarks.   That being so, the Court considered that the applicant’s conviction was not a measure reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and concluded 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.