CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 février 2009

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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   83 5.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BRUNET-LECOMTE AND OTHERS v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment in the case of Brunet-Lecomte and Others v. France (application no. 42117/04), concerning the decision to hold the applicants liable for defamation in relation to an article published in the magazine Objectif Rhône-Alpes . ( The judgment is available only in French .)   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Philippe Brunet-Lecomte and Bernard Monnot, French nationals who were born in 1954 and 1944 respectively and live in Lyons (France), and a private company, LM Développement, which publishes the monthly magazine Objectif Rhône-Alpes and has its registered office in Lyons.   Mr Brunet-Lecomte is the publication director of Objectif Rhône-Alpes and Mr Monnot is the former manager of the Lyons branch of the Banque Cantonale de Genève (BCG), a Swiss-based bank.   The February 2001 issue of Objectif Rhône-Alpes featured the headline “Dirty money: a Lyons banker accuses the Banque Cantonale de Genève” and contained an interview with Mr   Monnot, who referred to “large-scale money laundering” and “black-market money from tax evasion and criminal activities” with reference to the BCG.   The Lyons branch of the BCG brought proceedings against Mr Monnot and Mr Brunet-Lecomte for the offence of public defamation of a private person, submitting that the interview and the commentary introducing it were defamatory and infringed the presumption of its innocence. The applicants disputed that the statements in question were defamatory and argued that the interview was in the public interest.   On 3 October 2002 the tribunal de grande instance held that the statements by Mr Monnot were defamatory and emphasised their virulent nature and the serious implications they entailed for all or part of the BCG’s management, while also noting the context of the dispute between the bank and Mr Monnot since his dismissal in 1996. The court further noted that Mr   Brunet-Lecomte had not verified Mr Monnot’s accusations against the BCG. It found that the prosecution was barred as a result of an amnesty and, ruling on the civil claim, ordered the applicants to pay 1   euro   (EUR) in damages.   Mr Monnot and Mr Brunet-Lecomte appealed unsuccessfully. The Court of Appeal upheld the award of EUR   1 in damages and observed that the applicants had acted in bad faith, displaying a lack of caution and moderation.   In a judgment of 11 May 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 November 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Rait Maruste (Estonia), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   The applicants complained in particular, under Article 10 (freedom of expression), that they had been held liable for public defamation of a private person.   Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest was subject to the proviso that they acted in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. It pointed out that resorting to a degree of exaggeration and not systematically distancing themselves from quotations were aspects of journalists’ freedom and of their role in imparting information.   The Court noted the virulent and unqualified nature of Mr Monnot’s statements accusing the BCG of laundering “dirty money” in the amount of 313 million francs. It highlighted the credibility conferred on Mr Monnot by his status as a former manager and noted that he had accused the BCG of acts punishable under the criminal law although no such conduct had been established by the criminal courts.   The Court observed that in the relevant article in Objectif Rhône-Alpes , Mr Brunet-Lecomte had published a strongly worded introduction to Mr Monnot’s statements, going beyond the degree of exaggeration, or even provocation, that constituted appropriate journalistic practice. It considered that Mr Brunet-Lecomte, despite being a media professional, had omitted to take precautions and to qualify the statements by Mr Monnot. The Court was not satisfied that he had acted in good faith as required by the ethics of journalism.   The Court further noted the purely symbolic nature of the sum of EUR   1 which the applicants had been ordered to pay in damages.   Taking into consideration the content of the statements published without reservation and held to be defamatory, their potential public impact and the amount awarded in damages, the Court concluded that the French authorities’ interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been proportionate and that there had been no violation of Article 10.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.