CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 février 2008

.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 } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s5811DCC9 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sC790D588 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s433380F3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   106 14.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT JULY AND SARL LIBERATION v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of July and Sarl Libération v. France (application no. 20893/03).   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 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 7,500   euros   (EUR) jointly in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   13,572.80 for costs and expenses. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr July. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The first applicant, Serge July, who was born in 1942 and lives in Paris, was the publication director of the French daily newspaper Libération . The second applicant, the private limited company SARL “Libération”, is represented by Mr July, who was its manager at the material time.   The applicants’ complaints concerned their conviction for defamation because of the publication in Libération on 14 March 2000 of an article reporting statements made at a press conference concerning the case of Judge Bernard Borrel, a French judge found dead in suspicious circumstances in October 1995 while on assignment in Djibouti. The criminal investigation into the case received widespread media coverage and was moved to Paris in 1997.   The aim of the press conference had been to make public a request to the Minister of Justice by Elisabeth Borrel – the widow of the deceased – for an inquiry to be conducted by the Judicial Services Inspectorate into the judges in charge of the criminal investigation, Judge   Roger Le Loire and Judge Marie-Paule Moracchini. During the press conference Mrs   Borrel, her lawyers and some judges, including Dominique Matagrin, president of the Association Professionnelle des Magistrats (judges’ professional association) and Anne Crenier, president of the Syndicat de la magistrature (judges’ union), raised a number of questions and criticisms concerning the conduct of the investigation.   The above-mentioned investigating judges brought defamation proceedings against the applicants the day the article, written by the journalist Brigitte Vidal-Durand, was published under the title Mort d’un juge: la veuve attaque juges et policiers (“Death of a judge: widow attacks judges and police”). Four passages in the article were considered to be defamatory: “1. Bias. She (Mrs Borrel) complains of the bias shown by the judges. 2. The investigation of the case was being conducted in ‘bizarre’ fashion, according to Dominique Matagrin 3. Anne Crenier, meanwhile, spoke of ‘a catalogue of errors’ 4. They [the investigating judges] [had] been slow.” In a judgment of 13 March 2001 the Criminal Court acquitted the two applicants. Only the passage referring to the “bias shown by the judges” was found to be defamatory; the court accepted the applicants’ plea of good faith, taking the view that the newspaper, in reporting on the criticism of the investigation, had simply been performing its task of informing the public.   On an appeal by the applicant, Versailles Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 14 November 2001, partly quashed the applicants’ acquittal. It held that, in addition to the allegation that the judges had been biased, the accusation that “the investigation of the [Borrel] case [had been] conducted in ‘bizarre’ fashion” was also defamatory. The court considered that the passages in question damaged the honour and reputation of the two investigating judges. The appellate court did not accept the applicants’ plea of good faith, taking the view that the journalist had not attempted to “cover the topic in the context of an interview”. It observed that she had steered a “middle course” in order to make her task easier and that she should have “stated that she intended to offer those concerned the opportunity to have their say”.   Accordingly, Mr July was found guilty of public defamation of civil servants and the applicant company was held civilly liable. Mr July was ordered to pay a fine of 10,000   French   francs   (FRF) (approximately EUR   1,500) and the same amount in damages to each of the civil parties, and to insert an announcement in Libération and in another national daily newspaper setting out the main findings of the judgment; the cost of inserting the announcement was not to exceed FRF   15,000 (approximately EUR   2,286). The Court of Appeal also ordered the applicants jointly and severally to pay the civil parties FRF   20,000 (approximately EUR   3,000) in respect of the costs not paid by the State.   The applicants appealed on points of law on the basis, among other things, of Article 10 of the Convention. In a judgment of 14 January 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, finding in particular that the applicants had failed signally in their duty of caution and objectivity.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26   June 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), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article 10, the applicants complained of their conviction for defamation.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court considered that the applicants’ conviction amounted to interference with their right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by French law and had pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the reputation of the investigating judges concerned and maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.   As to whether the interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court recalled first of all the essential “watchdog” role played by the press in a democratic society. Although the press must not overstep certain bounds, its duty was nevertheless to impart – in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities – information and ideas on all matters of public interest, including those relating to the functioning of the judicial system.   In the applicants’ case the Court was not persuaded by the reasons given by Versailles Court of Appeal. It observed that the article in question had been a report on a press conference concerning a case already in the public domain, and stressed that it was not for the national courts to substitute their own views for those of the press as to what techniques of reporting should be adopted by journalists in imparting information.   The Court also noted that the article had rightly used reported speech and had used quotation marks in several places in order to avoid any confusion in readers’ minds between the statements made by the speakers and the newspaper’s analysis. The speakers’ names had also been given each time for the benefit of the reader, with the result that it could not be argued, as the appellate court had done, that some passages could be attributed to the journalist, and hence to the applicants.   As to the reason given by the Court of Appeal concerning the use of the adjective “bizarre”, the Court noted that the description, while it was certainly not flattering, had been attributed by the article to one of the participants in the press conference and had not been used by the journalist personally. Furthermore, the article did not display any personal animosity towards the judges concerned, a fact acknowledged by the trial court.   Reiterating that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider with regard to civil servants acting in an official capacity, the Court further found that the reasons given by the Court of Cassation for dismissing the applicants’ appeal had been neither relevant nor sufficient, given that the judges in question, both civil servants working for the “fundamental institutions of the State” could as such legitimately be the subject of personal criticism within “acceptable” limits, expressed not just in a theoretical and general manner.   In any event the Court considered that the applicants, in publishing the article, had not even had recourse to a degree of exaggeration or provocation, although that was permitted in the exercise of journalistic freedom. It did not consider the terms in question to be “manifestly insulting” to the two judges concerned and took the view that the grounds cited for finding that the applicants had not acted in good faith sat uneasily with the principles relating to the right of freedom of expression and the role of the press as “watchdog”.   The Court held that the applicants’ conviction could not be said to have been proportionate to the aims pursued and had not been “necessary in a democratic society”, in breach 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.