CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 30 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s73AF59F6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic }     711 30.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision Matelly v. France (no. 30330/04)   APPLICATION CONCERNING A GENDARMERIE OFFICER’S FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION DECLARED INADMISSIBLE     (The decision is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Jean-Hugues Matelly, is a French national who was born in 1965 and lives in Amiens. He is a gendarmerie officer attached to the National Gendarmerie Training Command.   He is also an associate researcher at the Centre for Police Studies and Research in Toulouse, and in January 2003 he published an article in Les Cahiers de la Sécurité Intérieure about new management methods in the gendarmerie, the resistance they were likely to face and the associated risk of “systematic recourse to manipulation of official statistics".   Following, among other things, an interview with the newspaper Libération , published in an article entitled “Gendarmerie captain slams vagueness of crime figures: ‘Temptation to cheat’”, on 4 February 2003 Mr Matelly received an oral instruction from the commander of the National Gendarmerie Training Command not to communicate any further with the press. On 18 March 2003 he was reprimanded by the Minister for Defence for breaching “military regulations” and for “failure to observe the duty of discretion in written or oral expression”.   Two urgent applications by Mr Matelly to the Conseil d’État (for the protection of a fundamental freedom and for a stay of execution of the decision of 4 February 2003) were dismissed, as was an application for judicial review.   However, on 10 November 2004 the Conseil d’État set aside the disciplinary sanction of 18   March 2003, in particular because of procedural irregularities (the applicant had been unable to exercise his right to provide a written explanation).   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that there had been a disproportionate restriction of his freedom of expression and that he had had no remedy available to challenge the measures taken against him.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 August 2004.   Decision was given by a Chamber composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Jean-Paul Costa,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges ,   and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The oral instruction received by Mr Matelly had constituted interference with his right to freedom of expression since failure to obey the instruction carried a disciplinary sanction. It was not disputed by the applicant that the interference had had a basis in law, and the Court considered that it had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder in the armed forces.   However, bearing in mind that the statements by the applicant in the media had been capable of undermining public confidence in the actions of the gendarmerie, that (above all) the order prohibiting him from communicating with the media had been limited in scope and that the sanction imposed (the reprimand of 18 March 2003), which was of moderate severity, had been set aside, the Court considered that the French authorities’ interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been disproportionate. This complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded and had to be dismissed. As a consequence, the complaint under Article 13 was not applicable and was likewise dismissed.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.