CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 }   501 23.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   TWO CHAMBER JUDGMENTS v. SERBIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its two Chamber judgments [1] in the cases of Bodrožić and Vujin v. Serbia ( application no. 38435/05 ) and Bodrožić v. Serbia ( no. 33550/05 ). The cases concerned the criminal sentencing of the applicants for having written two articles perceived as offensive.   The Court held unanimously that, in both cases, there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the criminal sanctions imposed on the applicants for exercising their journalistic freedom having been excessive.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr   Bodrožić 500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Mr Željko Bodrožić and Mr Vladislav Vujin, born respectively in 1970 and 1966, are Serbian nationals who live in Kikinda, Serbia. They are journalists and, at the time, were employed by the local weekly newspaper Kikindske.   In 2003 and 2004, they published two articles in the Kikindske newspaper. The first article was critical of criminal convictions previously imposed on several journalists for defamation; in particular   it referred to a well-known man, a lawyer, as “a blonde” and contained a photo of a blonde woman in her underwear next to an anagram of the lawyer’s name. The   second article condemned the views expressed on public television by a well-known historian concerning the existence and history of national minorities in Vojvodina;   it called the historian in question “an idiot” and “a fascist”.   The lawyer and historian, referred to in the articles, brought criminal proceedings against the applicants for insult. Mr Bodrožić was also prosecuted by the historian for defamation, because at the hearing in the insult case, he had referred to the historian as “a member of the fascist movement in Serbia”.   The domestic courts found both applicants guilty of insult, and Mr Bodrožić also of defamation, and fined them with sums upwards of EUR   150. The courts held, in the first case, that comparing the lawyer with a female was objectively insulting in society and, in the second case, that calling the historian “a fascist” and “an idiot” bore the sole aim of insulting   him.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 August 2003 and 13 October 2005 respectively and were examined for admissibility and merits at the same time.   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), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges ,   and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article 10, the applicants complained of being criminally convicted for the articles they had written.   Decision of the Court   As regards the first article, the Court noted that the applicants could have ended up in prison for 60 days had they not been able to pay the fine imposed. It found that while the text and picture of the article had been somewhat mocking, when considered as a whole, they could not have been understood as a gratuitous personal insult of the lawyer. In addition, the domestic courts’ conclusion that comparing an adult man to a blonde woman had been an attack on the integrity and dignity of men had been unacceptable. As the article had represented a general disapproval of the domestic courts’ practice of punishing journalistic freedom of expression, the applicants had raised an important issue of general public interest. The lawyer therefore, having been a locally well-known figure, should have displayed a higher degree of tolerance towards criticism directed at him.   As regards the second article, the Court noted that the applicant could have been imprisoned for 75 days, had he not been able to pay the fine imposed. The Court found that, while the journalist had indeed used harsh words which might have been considered offensive, his statements had been a reaction to the provocative interview given by the historian in the context of free debate on an issue of general interest. The article had not aimed to stir violence; the expressions used by the applicant could only have been interpreted as value judgments and therefore opinions not susceptible of proof. The historian, a well-known public figure having appeared on television, should have anticipated potential harsh criticism by a large group of people. Therefore, he too, had been obliged to display a greater degree of tolerance in this context.   Accordingly, the Court found in both cases that, by sentencing the applicants criminally for the articles they had written, the authorities had limited excessively their freedom of expression, in 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] 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.