CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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   819 22.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DESJARDIN v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Desjardin v. France (application no. 22567/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s conviction for having distributed a pamphlet in the course of an election campaign, the content of which was held to be defamatory by the French courts.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation was sufficient to compensate for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded him 150   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Alain Desjardin, is a French national who was born in 1935 and lives in Castelnau-le-Lez (France).   A farmer and member of the Green Party ( Les Verts ), Mr Desjardin stood as a candidate for the party in the March 2001 cantonal elections, in the constituency of C. in France. During the campaign he was involved, between 27 February and 1 March 2001, in distributing pamphlets in which he stated, among other things: “As a grassroots ecologist, together with women and men passionate about justice and conservation, I have drawn the public’s attention to serious damage being done to the environment and risks to human health”. He cited as an example his “support for the inhabitants of [C.], who secured the resignation of the former mayor who had been polluting the municipality’s water supply”.   In May 2001 A., a former mayor of the municipality of C., instituted defamation proceedings against the applicant, claiming that the pamphlet had targeted him. Mr Desjardin applied for the summons to appear to be set aside on grounds of nullity, arguing that the facts in issue related to actions performed by the former mayor in the exercise of his duties. In a judgment of 10 October 2001, the courts rejected the application and ordered the applicant, among other things, to pay a fine of 1,000   French   francs   (FRF), (approximately EUR   150). The courts also ordered that the judgment convicting the applicant be published in two local newspapers, the Midi Libre and the Dépêche du Midi .   In February 2002 the criminal part of the judgment in question was upheld on appeal. The applicant was also ordered to pay the complainant EUR   150 in damages and to pay a further sum of EUR   400 for costs incurred in connection with the appeal. He also had to pay a fixed court fee of EUR   120. Publication of the judgment in the press was held to be unnecessary. The applicant appealed against that judgment on points of law, but the appeal was dismissed.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 July 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10, Mr Desjardin complained of his conviction for defamation.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court considered that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been “prescribed by law” and had pursued the “legitimate aim” of protecting the reputation of the former mayor. It remained to be determined whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court reiterated the importance of the right to impart information on matters of public interest, stressing that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider with regard to politicians. Freedom of expression was particularly important for political parties and their members; hence, all election candidates must be able to discuss the actions taken by those formerly in power. In that connection the Court noted that, when he had distributed the impugned pamphlet, the applicant had been standing as a candidate in the cantonal elections and had been conducting his electoral campaign.   Furthermore, in the context of an election contest, robust remarks were more acceptable than in other circumstances. The Court reiterated that, while all individuals engaging in public debate on matters of general interest were obliged not to overstep certain boundaries when it came to respecting the reputation and rights of others, they were also entitled to have recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. It considered that, although the expressions used by Mr Desjardin could have been wrongly construed, they had nonetheless remained within the limits of acceptable exaggeration or provocation.   The Court added that the medium used, a pamphlet, clearly did not lend itself to in-depth discussion by the applicant of the policy of those formerly in charge of the municipality regarding the monitoring of its water quality. In addition, the pamphlet had been distributed by campaigners and by the candidate himself, precisely with the aim of publicising the latter’s political views.   Lastly, the Court considered that the mildness of the penalty imposed on the applicant could not, in itself, suffice to justify the interference with his right to freedom of expression. It concluded that Mr Desjardin’s conviction amounted to disproportionate interference which had not been “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) 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.