CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 }     438 2.6.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BOROVSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Borovský v. Slovakia (application no. 24528/02). The case concerned statements, about Mr Borovský’s participation in a criminal offence, which the police authorities made to the media, while the investigation in his criminal case was on-going.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the statements of the deputy director of the Office of the Finance Police having implied, at the very initial stages of criminal investigation, that Mr Borovský had been guilty of an offence with which he had not been charged.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Jan Borovský, is a Slovak national who was born in 1946 and lives in Košice. In August 2000, the police brought criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of him having caused prejudice to the creditor of two major companies by having allowed the transfer of securities of those companies to a third party.   Mr Borovský received the first decision accusing him of the above-described offence on 7 September 2000. A number of other articles were published in various newspapers before and after that date. The articles were mostly based on facts contained in the decision to start criminal proceedings against Mr Borovský and made reference to the police as the source of information.   On 18 September 2000, the weekly magazine Profit, published an article disclosing details from the investigation file kept by the police, including certain citations by the deputy director of the Office of the Finance Police who stated, among other things, that the actions of Mr Borovský had been “premeditated” and “fraudulent”.   In August 2001, Mr Borovský was indicted with the offence of abuse of authority. He was acquitted in February 2003, as the court found that he had neither acted contrary to the law nor had intended to cause prejudice to anyone.   Mr Borovský sued the editor of Profit magazine for defamation resulting from the publication of the 18 September 2000 article. In September 2002, the court found for the applicant and ordered the editor of Profit to publish an apology for the false statements contained in that article.     In May 2001, Mr Borovský applied to the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of his right to be presumed innocent caused by the statements of the police officers who had disclosed the content of the investigation file to the media and had announced that he had committed criminal offences. The Constitutional Court found that there had been no violation of Mr Borovský’s right to be presumed innocent.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 June 2002 and was examined together for admissibility and merits.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Giovanni Bonello (Malta), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Ledi Bianku   (Albania), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges , and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 6 § 2, Mr Borovský complained that his right to be presumed innocent had been infringed as a result of the police officers having informed the media of the content of his investigation file, as well as of their statements concerning his guilt.   Decision of the Court   The Court first found that the statements by the police officers, referred to in the various newspapers, when read in the context of the articles as a whole, had reflected the view that there had existed justified reasons to suspect Mr Borovský of having committed the offence at issue. Accordingly, in respect of the content of most articles, the Court reached the same conclusion as had the Constitutional Court.   The Court, however, drew a distinction in respect of the statements made by the deputy director of the Office of the Finance Police quoted in the 18 September 2000 Profit magazine article. His statements had not been limited to describing the status of the pending proceedings or a “state of suspicion” against Mr Borovský. Instead, by qualifying the acts as fraudulent and premeditated, they had given an assessment of the position as if it had been an established fact. That statement, therefore, had implied that the accused had committed fraud - an offence with which Mr Borovský had not been charged neither at the time nor later.   Having had regard to the Constitutional Court ordering the editor of Profit to apologise for the publication as there had been no basis for it in the facts of the case, the Court held that the statement by the deputy director of the Office of the Financial Police had run contrary to Mr Borovský’s right to be presumed innocent. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 6 §2 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.