CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 février 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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   77 1.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT FERIHUMER v. AUSTRIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ferihumer v. Austria (application no. 30547/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Ferihumer, and awarded him 418.17 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 10,274.07 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Johann Ferihumer, is an Austrian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Waizenkirchen (Austria).   At the time of the events, he was the father of a pupil who attended the secondary school in Grieskirchen and vice-chairman and secretary of the school’s parents' association. In protest against the government's cuts in the education budget, the teachers of this school decided to reduce and shorten school trips for the school year 2001 to 2002. The pupils and some parents, including the applicant, did not agree with those measures. The applicant called for a vote by the School Committee as to whether the class his son was attending should go on a one-week trip to Tuscany or Prague.   On 22 January 2002, at the School Committee meeting, a compromise was signed providing for a one-day excursion per class during the school year and for compensatory trips in autumn 2003.   On the same day the applicant made a statement to the “ Oberösterreicher Rundschau ”, a local Austrian newspaper, that conflict between the teachers, parents and pupils concerning the boycott measures was to the detriment of pupils. He further added that the teachers were applying pressure on the pupils and parents to an intolerable extent and that that amounted to an abuse of their authority.   Subsequently, the majority of the school’s teachers brought proceedings against the applicant for insult and damage to their reputation before Peuersbach District Court. On 9 October 2002 the applicant was ordered to refrain from repeating statements referring to teachers applying pressure on pupils and parents and to abuse of authority and it was noted that that was insulting and defamatory within the meaning of Article 1330 of the Civil Code. The court stated that the applicant had to accept the worst possible interpretation of his statements, that is to say that the teachers had used unlawful and unprofessional means, such as physical or verbal violence or misused their authority to decide upon school marks.   The applicant appealed against that decision, submitting that he had only alluded to subtle methods employed by the teachers to reach a compromise, namely their threat to boycott the School Committee’s meeting and their tactics to undermine the authority of the pupils’ spokesperson, who had, as a result resigned. He further claimed that his statement was a value judgment with a sufficient factual basis.   On 5   February 2003 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by Wels Regional Court, noting that the statement at issue constituted a statement of fact susceptible of proof, which the applicant had failed to provide.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 September 2003 and declared admissible on 14 February 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10, the applicant complained that the injunction ordering him to refrain from repeating the above-mentioned statement, violated his right to freedom of expression.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 The Court found that both parties agreed that the injunction at issue constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression but that that interference was “prescribed by law” (Section 1330 of the Civil Code) and served to protect “the reputation or rights of others”. The issue to be examined was whether the interference had been “necessary within a democratic society” and corresponded to a “pressing social need” proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and sufficiently justified by the national authorities.   The Court observed that the applicant's statement had been made in the immediate context of a heated discussion between teachers, pupils and parents. The applicant did not favour the compromise finally reached and reacted in consequence.   Unlike the domestic courts, the Court did not find that the applicant’s statement necessarily suggested that the teachers had used unlawful and unprofessional means as that interpretation focused on “abuse of authority” rather than the applicant’s feeling that the “teachers applied intolerable pressure”. The applicant had expressed his opinion on the teachers' conduct and made a value judgment, the truth of which, by definition, could not be proved.   Given the considerable tension at the school concerned resulting in the pupils' spokesperson’s resignation, the Court further found that the applicant’s statement was sufficiently based in fact and, therefore, could not be considered excessive. In that connection, the Court also took account of the fact that the applicant was vice-chair of the parents' association.   The Court concluded that the interference therefore went beyond what would have amounted to a “necessary” restriction on the applicant's freedom of expression and violated the applicant's rights under 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.