CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 mars 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 } .s8A4FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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   214 27.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT AZEVEDO v. PORTUGAL   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Azevedo v. Portugal (application no. 20620/04).   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 defamation following the publication of a book in which he had criticised a scientific work.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,947.65   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   7,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Leonel Lucas Azevedo, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1964 and lives in Castelo Branco (Portugal).   In October 2001 the municipal authority of Castelo Branco published a book entitled Gardens of the Episcopal Palace of Castelo Branco , which was co-authored by the applicant.   In one part of the book, which was presented as a work of research for the general public, the applicant commented on what he regarded as the poor quality of previous works on the gardens in question.   Mrs S., the author of one of the earlier works who was particularly targeted by the criticisms, filed a criminal complaint for defamation against the applicant with the prosecutor’s office of Castelo Branco and applied for assistente status in the proceedings. In May 2003 the applicant was given a suspended sentence of one month’s imprisonment and ordered to pay a token euro to the complainant, together with the cost of publishing an extract from the judgment in two regional newspapers. One of the passages from the book was found to be defamatory:   “Confusion about the role attributed to art, in this case poetry, which is said to be a vector for explaining [original emphasis] reality, would justify attendance for an extended season at a primary [school] for the study of literature and aesthetics, with an obligation to read and analyse Aristotle, Horace and Goethe – not forgetting W. Benjamin and H. Broch if extra tuition is required.”   In December 2003 the Coimbra Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by Mr Azevedo against his conviction, considering that freedom of expression was not more important than the complainant’s right to protect her honour and reputation. However, the court replaced the suspended prison sentence by a daily fine of 10 euros for 100 days, or 66 days’ imprisonment in the event of default.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3   June 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Rıza Türmen (Turkish), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), András Sajó (Hungarian), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, Mr Azevedo complained about his conviction for defamation.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court observed that the applicant’s criminal conviction constituted interference with his right to freedom of expression. That interference was prescribed by the Portuguese Criminal Code and had the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of Mrs S.   As to whether that interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court considered that the controversy in issue – the historical and symbolic study of a significant monument of Castelo Branco – was a matter of public interest. Bearing in mind that Mrs S. was the author of an academic work that had been published and was available on the market, she had laid herself open to potential criticism by readers or by other members of the academic community and could not be regarded as a “private individual”.   Moreover, the Court found that the applicant’s comments, while admittedly having a negative connotation, sought mainly to question the assumed quality of the complainant’s analysis of the monument concerned. They were value judgments and, accordingly, were not susceptible of proof.   Lastly, the imposition of a criminal penalty on the type of criticism made by the applicant would substantially restrict the freedom that researchers needed in the context of their scientific work. To allow for the possibility of a prison sentence in such a classic defamation case would inevitably have a disproportionate and chilling effect.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation 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) 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.