CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 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 } .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 }   442 04.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA (NO. 2)   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (No. 2) (application no. 21277/05).   The Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the publication of an article which had reported on rumours about the then Austrian President’s marriage. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, a limited liability company with its seat in Vienna, is the owner of the daily newspaper Der Standard . In May 2004, the newspaper published an article entitled “A society rumour”. It commented on rumours in the “upper crust of Viennese society” that Ms   Klestil-Loeffler, the wife of the then Austrian President, intended to divorce and had close contacts with two men, notably Herbert Scheibner, Head of the FPÖ parliamentary group.   The presidential couple subsequently brought proceedings against Der Standard under sections 6 and 7 of the Media Act. The Vienna Regional Criminal Court ruled in their favour by judgment of 15 June 2004 and ordered the applicant company to pay EUR 5,000 compensation to Mr Klestil, and EUR 7,000 to Mrs Klestil-Löffler as well as to publish its judgment. It held that Der Standard had reported on the strictly personal sphere of the couple’s life – alleging that Mrs Klestil-Löffler was a double adulteress and Mr Klestil a deceived husband – which had most likely undermined them in public. In reply to Der Standard ’s defence that the article merely reported on a rumour, the Regional Court noted that even the dissemination of a rumour could breach section 7 of the Media Act, if it conveyed the impression that there was some truth in it.   Further relying on the Media Act, the Austrian courts refused to take evidence on whether the rumours at issue actually existed at the time, dismissing the applicant company’s argument that the article was related to public life. In particular, the courts made a distinction between a politician allegedly having marital problems and his or her state of health, which could have a bearing on the exercise of his or her functions.   On appeal the applicant company alleged in particular that the presidential couple had, like no other before, kept the public informed about their private life and used it as a “marketing strategy”. It also argued that the article’s aim was to make fun of the gossip in bourgeois society. The judgment of 15 June 2004 was, however, upheld by the Vienna Court of Appeal in a judgment of 20 January 2005.   Similarly, in proceedings brought by Mr Scheibner in June 2004, the Regional Court found in his favour, noting that the article had reported on the strictly personal issue of his alleged relationship with Mrs Klestil-Löffler which had no link with his public functions and in a way which was likely to undermine him in public. The Court of Appeal again confirmed the Regional Court’s reading of the article’s contents.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 10 (right to freedom of expression), the applicant company complained about the Austrian courts’ decisions in the proceedings against it.   Decision of the Court   It was undisputed that the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression was “prescribed by law” (the Media Act) and served the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of others.   The Court reiterated that the right of the public to be informed could in certain special circumstances be extended to aspects of the private life of public figures, particularly politicians.   However, in the present case, the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression had been justified by the Austrian courts. In particular, the courts, balancing the various interests concerned, had duly considered the claimants’ status as public figures but had nonetheless found that the article had failed to contribute to any debate of general interest. The distinction made between information concerning the health of a politician which could be an issue of public concern and idle gossip about his marriage was a convincing one. Nor indeed at any time had the applicant company alleged that the rumours had been true.   Considering therefore that even public figures could legitimately expect to be protected against the propagation of rumours relating to intimate aspects of their private life, the Court found that the interference in question had been necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of others. Furthermore, the measures imposed on the applicant company had not been disproportionate. Therefore there had been no violation of Article 10.     Judge Jebens and Judge Spielmann expressed a 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.