CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 novembre 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 } .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   742 6.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LEPOJIĆ v. SERBIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Lepojić v. Serbia (application no. 13909/05).   The Court held, by five votes to two, 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 awarded Mr   Lepojić 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Zoran Lepojić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Babušnica (Serbia). He was president of a local branch of the Demo-Christian Party in Serbia ( Demohrišćanska stranka Srbije ).   The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for criminal defamation in relation to his article about the Mayor of Babušnica, written in the run-up to the 2002 elections.   In August of 2002, the applicant’s article, entitled “A Despotic Mayor”, appeared in the newsletter “Narodne lužnicke novine”. In his article, Mr Lepojić firstly argued that Mr P.J. could no longer be the mayor of the Municipality of Babušnica because he had been expelled from his political party and was therefore not legally allowed to remain in post. That opinion was based on information provided by the Ministry of Justice and Local Self-Government. Secondly, based on information provided by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia, Mr Lepojić accused the mayor of committing “legal infractions amounting to crimes”, stating that criminal complaints had been filed against him and that he had abused his authority as the Director of the State-owned company, Lisca. Lastly, the applicant criticised what he called the mayor’s “nearly insane” ( sumanuto ) spending of municipality money on sponsorships and gala lunches.   In response to the publication of the article, the mayor filed a private criminal action against the applicant who, on 11 June 2003, was found guilty of criminal defamation (kleveta) on the basis of his reference to “nearly insane” spending of municipality money on sponsorships and gala lunches. He was given a suspended fine of 15,000   dinars   (CSD) and required to pay CSD   11,000 for costs, which was at that time equivalent to approximately EUR   400. The court reasoned that the applicant had failed to prove either the truth of the statement in question or that he had had reasonable grounds to believe that it was true. The term sumanuto also implied that the mayor had a mental illness. The judgment was upheld on appeal.   On 8 February 2005 the mayor filed a separate civil complaint for damages, alleging that he had suffered mental anguish as a result of the publication of the article. On 18 March 2005 the applicant was ordered to pay CSD   120,000 in compensation plus interest and costs of CSD   39,000, which was then equivalent to approximately EUR   1,970. The court concerned reasoned that the honour of the mayor was more important than that of an ordinary individual. On appeal the award for costs was reduced to CSD   24,200, then equivalent to approximately EUR   295.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 April 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , Milenko Kreca (Serbian) , ad hoc judge , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr   Lepojić complained about the criminal conviction and civil judgment against him, relying on Article 10 and Article 6 § 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court noted that the final criminal and civil judgments at issue undoubtedly constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression which were   “prescribed by law” and adopted in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely “for the protection of the reputation” of another. Concerning whether the criminal conviction and the compensation awarded were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, the Court noted that the applicant had clearly written the article in question in the run-up to an election and in his capacity as a politician. The target of the applicant’s criticism was the mayor, himself a public figure, and the word “ sumanuto ” was obviously not used to describe the mayor’s mental state but rather to explain the manner in which he had allegedly been spending local taxpayers’ money. Although the applicant was unable to prove before the domestic courts that his other claims were true, even assuming that they were all statements of fact and, as such, susceptible of proof, he clearly had some reason to believe that the mayor might have been involved in criminal activity and, also, that his tenure was unlawful. In any event, although the applicant’s article contained some strong language, it was not a gratuitous personal attack and focused on issues of public interest rather than the mayor’s private life. The reasoning of the criminal and civil courts, in ruling against the applicant, was not “sufficient”, given the amount of compensation and costs awarded (equivalent to approximately eight average monthly salaries in Serbia at the relevant time) as well as the suspended fine which could, under certain circumstances, have been converted into a prison term.   Bearing in mind the seriousness of the criminal sanctions involved, as well as the domestic courts’ dubious reasoning that the mayor’s honour was more important than that of an ordinary citizen, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 6 § 1   The Court considered that it was unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint that he had not had a fair hearing. His complaint about the impartiality of the presiding judge in the civil proceedings was introduced more than six months after the final judicial decision in Serbia and was therefore inadmissible.     Judges Zagrebelsky and Kreca expressed dissenting opinions, which are 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.