CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 avril 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   292 24.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CAMPOS DÂMASO v. PORTUGAL   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal (application no. 17107/05).   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 the publication of an article about a leading politician in the Portuguese daily newspaper Público .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,750   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, Eduardo José Campos Dâmaso, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1962 and lives in Lisbon. At the relevant time he was a journalist with the daily newspaper Público .   The case concerned the applicant’s conviction and fine for publishing an article about criminal proceedings pending against a leading politician.   In January 1995 the applicant wrote a number of articles in Público disparaging N.D., the then vice-chairman of the parliamentary group of the ruling Social Democratic Party (PSD). N.D. was suspected of having set up a system of falsified invoices through the intermediary of a company of which he was the principal shareholder. N.D. also allegedly benefited from preferential treatment when he purchased the land on which he had a house built.   After the articles were published, criminal proceedings were opened against N.D. by the Attorney-General. The accused resigned from his office in the PSD.   On the cover of its 4 November 1998 issue, Público announced: “N.D. accused of deception and tax fraud”. This coverline referred to an article by the applicant in which he reported that the public prosecution service had already set out its case against N.D. In its issue of 5 November 1998 the applicant wrote another article, this time giving more details on the offences with which N.D. was charged and, in particular, describing the prosecution case which, he stated, had already been notified to the accused.   Criminal proceedings were subsequently brought against the applicant, mainly on a charge of breaching judicial secrecy.   On 25 May 2004 the court of Esposende found the applicant guilty and ordered to him to pay 25 day-fines for a total of EUR 1,750 together with court costs. The court indicated that only the article published on 5 November 1998 constituted an offence, since in that article the applicant had described the prosecution case, some of which had been transcribed verbatim. The court acknowledged, however, that the article had not prejudiced the investigation, which explained the moderate nature of the penalty.   Mr Campos Dâmaso appealed against that judgment, alleging in particular that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. His appeal was dismissed by the Guimarães Court of Appeal in January 2005.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 May 2005.   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), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), András Sajó (Hungarian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained about his conviction for the publication of the article at issue, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court first noted that the applicant’s conviction constituted interference with his right to freedom of expression; that interference being prescribed by Portuguese law and pursuing the legitimate aims of protecting N.D.’s right to a fair hearing, ensuring respect for the presumption of innocence, and of guaranteeing the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.   The Court then observed that the offending article concerned a matter of public interest and pointed out that the press had a duty to inform the public about offences of which politicians stood accused. It further indicated that politicians inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large. Recalling, moreover, that Recommendation Rec(2003)13 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe stressed the importance of the right of journalists to report freely on the functioning of the criminal justice system, the Court considered that it had to determine whether the interest in the public’s being informed outweighed the applicant’s “duty and responsibility” to respect N.D.’s right to the presumption of innocence.   The Court found that, while it was true that the article had been published at a crucial point in the criminal proceedings, it was nevertheless noteworthy that the offending article had followed other articles by the same writer on the same issues which had been published almost four years earlier and which had given rise to the opening of criminal proceedings against N.D. In addition, the article did not take a position as to his potential guilt but simply described the prosecution case. Lastly, as no lay judge could have been called upon to hear the case, it was even less likely that the article might have affected the outcome of the judicial proceedings. As to the interest of protecting an investigation in progress, as alleged by the Portuguese Government, the Court pointed out that the court of Esposende had itself held that the investigations had not been prejudiced by the publication of the article. The offending article, in particular the part describing the charges laid against N.D., was relevant not only to the subject matter but also to the credibility of the information supplied, providing evidence of its accuracy and authenticity. Accordingly, the Court considered that the interest in publishing the article had outweighed the aim, however legitimate it might be, of protecting judicial secrecy.   Moreover, the Court observed that the moderate level of the fine had by no means negated the chilling effect of the applicant’s conviction, given the severity of the penalty incurred.   The Court held that Mr Campos Dâmaso’s conviction had constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression, in breach of Article 10.   Article 6 § 1   The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     ***   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.