CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 avril 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s83FDA10F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:113.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 262 26.04.2007 Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT COLAÇO MESTRE AND SIC –   SOCIEDADE INDEPENDENTE DE COMUNICAÇÃO S.A. v. PORTUGAL     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A. v. Portugal (applications nos   11182/03 and 11319/03).   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression).   The Court, unanimously, considered that   the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by Mr Colaço Mestre and awarded him, by six votes to one, 2,104.72   euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant company EUR 678.37 for pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are José Manuel Colaço Mestre, a Portuguese national who was born in 1964 and lives in Queluz (Portugal), and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, a limited company having its registered office in Oeiras. Mr Colaço Mestre is a journalist with the television channel SCI.   On 22 November 1996, as part of a television programme entitled Os donos da bola (masters of the ball), SCI broadcast an interview conducted by Mr Colaço Mestre with Gerhard Aigner, who at the time was General Secretary of UEFA. The interview, which took place in Amsterdam, focussed on allegations concerning bribery of referees in Portugal and the actions of Mr Pinto da Costa, the then President of the Portuguese Professional Football League and Chairman of the football club FC Porto. Mr Colaço Mestre described Mr Pinto da Costa as “the referees’ boss”, accused him of insulting two referees and seemed to be eliciting comments from his interviewee about the concurrent functions exercised by Mr Pinto da Costa at the time.   Mr Pinto da Costa lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants, among others, accusing them of libel through the medium of the press, and sought leave to intervene in the proceedings as an assistant of the prosecuting authority ( assistente ). Oporto Criminal Court sentenced Mr Colaço Mestre to a fine or an alternative 86-day term of imprisonment, and ordered the journalist and the television channel jointly and severally to pay the claimant damages of approximately EUR 3,990.   On 2 October 2002 Oporto Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants and upheld their conviction.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Colaço Mestre’s application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 March 2003 and that of SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação on 31 March 2003. After joining the applications, the Court declared them admissible on 18 October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Karl Jungwiert (Czech) Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants considered that their conviction of defamation had constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. They relied on Article 10.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court reiterated that the press played an essential role in a democratic society. Although it could not overstep certain bounds, in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others, its duty was nevertheless to impart – in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities – information and ideas on all matters of public interest. Not only did it have the task of imparting such information and ideas: the public also had a right to receive them.   In the present case, it was not in dispute that the applicants’ conviction constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression. The interference was prescribed by Portuguese law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others.   The question for the Court to address was whether that interference was necessary in a democratic society. In this connection, the Court noted that Mr Pinto da Costa was well known to the general public and played a major role in Portuguese public life. Moreover, the interview had not concerned his private life but solely his public activities as Chairman of a leading football club and President of the League. The debate concerning bribery in football is clearly a question of public interest. As to the expressions used during the interview, the Court considered that there had been no breach of journalistic ethics.   In any event, and in view of the context, namely the heated debate at the time about bribery of Portuguese referees, the journalist could not be reproached for having addressed in this manner an issue of great concern to the general public. Moreover, the interview had been broadcast in a Portuguese football programme intended for an audience with a particular interest in and knowledge of the subject-matter. The Court further considered that the fact that Mr Colaço Mestre had not been speaking in his mother tongue, when he conducted the interview in Amsterdam, might have had an impact on the wording of his questions.   Lastly, the Court found that the punishment of a journalist by sentencing him to pay a fine, together with an award of damages against him and the television channel employing him, might seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there were particularly strong reasons for doing so. However, that was not the case here.   In those circumstances the Court considered that, whilst the reasons advanced by the Portuguese courts to justify the applicants’ conviction might be regarded as relevant, they were not, however, sufficient and, accordingly, did not serve to meet a pressing social need. The Court held, therefore, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Judge Mularoni 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 Convention, 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.