CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 16 juillet 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .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 }   571 16.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   ADMISSIBILITY DECISION HACQUEMAND v. FRANCE   A Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible the application lodged in the case of Hacquemand v. France (application no. 17215/06) concerning the criminal conviction of a journalist for illustrating a news item with a photograph, probably obtained from the investigators, showing an arrested person in police custody. ( The decision is available only in French .)   The applicant, Eric Hacquemand, a journalist, is a French national who was born in 1973 and lives in Gagny (France). On 15 April 2000 the daily newspaper Le Parisien published an article by him in its local edition Seine-et-Marne Matin . The article, illustrated by the photograph of an individual in police custody, E.C., concerned the charges against him, for theft of car, cheques and banker’s cards, making off without payment and illegal work. E.C. filed a criminal complaint which led to the applicant’s conviction on 10 February 2004 by the Meaux Criminal Court – upheld on 21 February 2005 by the Paris Court of Appeal – for making use of property obtained through a breach of the confidentiality of a judicial or police investigation. He was ordered to pay 1,000   euros   (EUR) in damages and a fine of EUR   1,500. The domestic courts found in particular that the disputed photograph could only have come from an investigator, that it had been taken in connection with criminal proceedings and that it was therefore covered by the confidentiality of the investigation. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was finally dismissed by a judgment of the Court of Cassation on 25   October 2005.   The application, setting out the following complaints about the conviction in question, was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 April 2006.   Relying mainly on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Hacquemand argued that his conviction constituted an interference with his freedom of expression that was particularly unjustified because the published photograph was an appropriate illustration for a news item published by a newspaper. He also relied on Article 7 (no punishment without law) , complaining that the French law in such matters was not sufficiently foreseeable to ensure that information was imparted freely. The Court dealt with those two complaints together, in connection with its examination concerning interference with freedom of expression. It found that Mr Hacquemand’s conviction had certainly constituted such an interference but that the reasons given by the French courts to justify the interference were relevant and sufficient for the purposes of Article 10. There had been a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis for the conviction and it had been “necessary” to fulfil a legitimate aim: to protect the reputation or rights of others. There might be good reasons to prohibit publication of a suspect’s photograph, depending on the nature of the offence in question and the circumstances of the case. The Court identified such reasons in the present case: the offending photograph was not part of a debate in the general interest; the specific context of the case had been duly considered by the French courts; and the publication of the photograph had in particular disregarded E.C.’s right to be presumed innocent. In addition, there had been no issue concerning the applicant’s right not to disclose his sources and the sums that he had been ordered to pay remained moderate. The Court accordingly held that the applicant’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded and declared it inadmissible.   The applicant also relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial) . He first challenged the French courts’ findings about the confidential nature of the photograph. On that point the Court considered that it was not appropriate for it to re-examine the facts of the case. Mr   Hacquemand also complained that the domestic courts had presumed him guilty: the Court noted that this complaint had not been substantiated and that, in any event, the applicant had not raised it before the domestic courts. This part of the application was therefore also manifestly ill-founded and the Court declared it inadmissible.     ***   The decision will be available today on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 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.