CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   143 24.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CGIL AND COFFERATI v. ITALY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of CGIL and Cofferati v. Italy (application no. 46967/07).   The Court held by 5 votes to 2 that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   Sergio Cofferati is an Italian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Bologna. The Italian General Confederation of Labour ( Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro – the “CGIL”) is a trade-union federation whose registered office is in Rome. On 25 March 2002, when Mr Cofferati was still General Secretary of the CGIL, the daily newspaper Il   Messaggero published an interview   in which Mr Umberto Bossi,   who was then a minister and member of Parliament, drew a connection between the social climate allegedly created by the Left, and in particular the CGIL, and the murder of a Government consultant – Professor Marco Biagi – by the Red Brigades.   The applicants, who considered that the interview damaged their reputation, brought proceedings in the Rome District Court against Mr Bossi, the journalist who ran the interview, the editorial director of Il Messaggero and the newspaper’s publishing company. On 30 July 2003 the Chamber of Deputies decided that the statements in question had been uttered in the course of a parliamentary debate and that, consequently, Mr Bossi was covered by parliamentary immunity in accordance with Article 68 § 1 of the Constitution. On 10   February 2005 the Rome Court raised a conflict of State powers before the Constitutional Court and stayed the proceedings. On 10 July 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the conflict of powers submission inadmissible on the ground that the allegedly defamatory allegations by Mr Bossi had not been explicitly cited by the Rome District Court in its order. The applicants were therefore unable to pursue the civil proceedings against Mr Bossi and, moreover, considered it pointless to pursue the proceedings against the journalists, the daily and the publishing company because – they said – under Italian law the media were not liable in civil law for defamatory statements made by a politician where those statements were faithfully reproduced.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 October 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of their inability to sue Mr Bossi for defamation in the national courts on account of his parliamentary immunity.   Decision of the Court   The Court found that the proceedings against the journalists and Il Messaggero ’s publishing company pursued a different aim from those instituted against Mr Bossi and appeared, in any event, to have little prospect of success. The fact that those proceedings had not been pursued did not therefore remove the applicants’ victim status and did not render the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as the Italian Government had wrongly maintained.   On the merits the Court observed that, following the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies and the decision of the Constitutional Court, the civil proceedings brought against Mr Bossi had been paralysed and the applicants had been deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of compensation, which had resulted in an interference with their right of access to a court. The Court found that the interference had pursued a legitimate aim because it was designed to protect members of Parliament from partisan complaints, thereby ensuring that they enjoyed full freedom of expression during their term of office. It pointed out, however, that Mr Bossi’s statements had been made outside the context of the parliamentary debate on the murder of Marco Biagi and had therefore had no clear connection with a parliamentary activity. It held that the balance between the legitimate aim of the interference and the fundamental rights of the applicants had been upset and that, accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     Judges Sajó and Karakaş expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   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] 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.