CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 avril 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 }   348 28.04.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KARAKO v. HUNGARY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Karakó v. Hungary (application no. 39311/05).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the negative statement, expressed by another politician in respect of Mr Karakó, having been in conformity with domestic law and the Convention.   ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, László Karakó, a member of Parliament, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Gávavencsellő (Hungary). He was a candidate in the 2002 parliamentary elections.   On 19 April 2002, prior to the second ballot round, a flyer was distributed in his electoral district, signed by another politician, who was the chairman of the Regional General Assembly in the same electoral district. The flyer stated that Mr Karakó regularly voted against the interests of his district.   In May 2002, Mr Karakó filed a criminal complaint against the politician whose signature appeared on the flyer, accusing him of having damaged his reputation. An investigation was opened into the allegations, but was discontinued in May 2004 as the prosecutor considered no crime prosecutable by the State had been committed.   In January 2005, Mr Karakó brought proceedings as a private prosecutor, but in May 2005 his claim was dismissed by the court, which held that the statement on the flyer in question was a value judgment with regard to which the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for a politician who had to display a greater degree of tolerance.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26   October   2005 and was examined together for admissibility and merits on 17 March 2009.   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 , judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 8, Mr Karakó complained of the Hungarian authorities’ failure to protect his right to private life by refusing to act upon his criminal complaint against the other politician who had distributed the flyer.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that an effective legal system for the protection of the rights falling under the notion of “private life” had existed in Hungary at the time. Given that the act complained of had represented a statement, and thus an expression, by another politician, the Court recalled that the obligation of the State to protect Article 8 rights had to go in parallel with protecting the rights and freedoms under Article 10. The domestic courts had concluded that the statement in the flyer had been a value judgment, and as such, an expression protected under Hungarian law. In reaching this conclusion, the authorities had taken into account that Mr Karakó had been an active politician and the statement in the flyer had been made during an election campaign in which he had been a candidate, and had constituted a negative opinion about his public activities. On these grounds, the statement in question had been found to have been constitutionally protected. The Court was satisfied that this analysis had been compatible with the Convention. Had the domestic courts sanctioned the politician for his statement in the flyer in question, they would have limited his freedom of expression unduly, and thus violated his Article 10 rights.   Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.     ***   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.