CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .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   636 18.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CHALABI v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Chalabi v. France (application no. 35916/04).   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.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nadji Chalabi, is a French national who was born in 1958 and lives in Vaulx-en-Velin (France).   The case concerned his conviction for defamation following the publication of an article about the director of the Grand Mosque of Lyon.   The article, entitled “Compulsory retirement for the Chief Mufti”, was published in November 2001 in a local magazine called Lyon Mag’ . It included an interview given by the applicant, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Grand Mosque of Lyon, in which he explained the circumstances of the departure of Mr Chirane, who had been the imam of the Grand Mosque of Lyon since 1994.   In that article the applicant criticised the conduct of Mr Kabtane, the director of the Grand Mosque of Lyon, in particular his administrative and financial management of the mosque and his religious practice and knowledge.   Mr Kabtane summoned the applicant, the newspaper’s publication director and Lyon Mag’ before the domestic courts for public defamation of an individual. In May 2003 the Lyons Court of Appeal found that the prosecution was time-barred under an amnesty but that, in respect of the civil action, one of the passages of the interview constituted the offence of public defamation of an individual. Mr Chalabi had expressed himself in the following terms: “How did Kabtane manage to get himself appointed head of the mosque? Because that suits everyone, and especially the politicians, who know full well that Kabtane’s management is dodgy. But he won’t make waves; he doesn’t give a damn about religion, and doesn’t know anything about it either. Things are quiet at the mosque though, and in the present circumstances that’s reassuring for everyone.” The Court of Appeal declared the applicant and publication director liable for the damage sustained by Mr Kabtane and ordered them jointly and severally to pay him EUR   1,500   in damages plus EUR   1,000 in expenses , Lyon Mag’ , for its part, being liable under the civil law for the financial penalties imposed. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed on points of law.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 September 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Rait Maruste (Estonian), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Renate Jaeger (German), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgarian), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Mr Chalabi complained that his conviction for defamation had breached Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court observed that the central question raised in the article concerned the management and funding of the Mosque and that at the time this had been a matter of controversy – fuelled and revived by the imam’s departure – that had been widely reported in the regional and national press. It considered that the funding and management of a place of worship, of any type, were matters of public interest for the members of the religious community concerned and, more broadly, the community as a whole. The Court pointed out that Mr Kabtane was a public figure on account of the institutional dimension and importance of his duties. As director and manager of the Grand Mosque of Lyon, he represented the Muslim community in the Lyons region and thus exposed himself to criticism of the manner in which he carried out his duties.   Given the general tenor of the interview and the context in which the comments had been made, the Court considered that they were to be regarded as value judgments rather than bald statements of fact.   Unlike the Lyons Court of Appeal, the Court held that the many documents produced showed that at the time of the article in question the comments in question had not been entirely without factual basis. Furthermore, Mr Kabtane had been under investigation for misappropriation and fraud and the judicial proceedings had still been under way at the relevant time. Even if, having regard to the presumption of innocence, a person under investigation could not be deemed guilty, the factual basis to the present case had not been inexistent.   With regard to the comments themselves, the Court did not discern any “manifestly insulting” terms such as to justify restricting the author’s freedom of expression and considered that the language used by the applicant could not be regarded as excessive.   In conclusion, the Court held that Mr Chalabi’s conviction amounted to a disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression and, in breach of Article 10, could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.