CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 octobre 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 } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s856DF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   735 08.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Brunet-Lecomte and Tanant v. France (application no. 12662/06 )   JOURNALISTS’ CONVICTION BREACHES RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants the reimbursement of the sums they had been ordered to pay on their conviction by the French courts: 21,000   euros   (EUR) (pecuniary damage). As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court’s finding of a violation was considered sufficient. As the applicants had not requested any sum for costs and expenses, the Court made no such award. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Principal facts   The applicants are two French nationals, who were born in 1954 and 1968 and live in Lyons (France). Philippe Brunet-Lecomte is the publication director of a regional magazine Objectifs Rhône Alpes , and Loïc Tanant is one of its journalists. In November 2000 the magazine carried an article entitled “Saint Etienne Savings Bank – MP in the dock”. Based on findings in a report by the Banque de France banking commission (a State supervisory body) and an internal report of the Caisse d’Epargne (the bank in question), they suggested that C., who was an MP, first deputy to the Mayor of Saint Etienne and chairman of the supervisory board of the local Caisse d’Epargne, might have committed criminal offences involving an abuse of office for personal gain.   On 10 November 2002 C. filed a criminal complaint with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, accusing Mr Brunet-Lecomte and Mr Tanant of defamation. A judicial investigation was opened on 4 December 2000 and on 2 November 2001 the applicants were committed to stand trial before the Saint Etienne Criminal Court. Among other pleas, they offered to adduce evidence in support of their allegations, but the offer was declared inadmissible as insufficiently precise. They were convicted of defamation on 21 May 2002. The Lyons Court of Appeal set aside that judgment in a judgment of 2 October 2002, which was in turn quashed by the Court of Cassation, and the case was remitted to the Dijon Court of Appeal on 30 September 2003. The applicants requested a stay of the proceedings pending the judicial investigation into the subject-matter of the article. On the merits they pleaded good faith, claiming that they had not shown any personal animosity towards C., having checked their sources and remaining prudent in their comments. On 5 August 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed their requests and claims. They were ordered to pay 19,000 euros to C. for defamation of a private individual. The court held that the applicants had misused the right to free criticism that they exercised as journalists and had disproportionately impugned a person’s reputation. They appealed on points of law but the Court of Cassation dismissed their appeal on 13 September 2005 and ordered them to pay an additional 2,000 euros in costs and expenses.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants complained about their conviction for defamation, which in their view was in breach of their right to freedom of expression under Article   10 of the Convention.   Their application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 March 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President, Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Judges,   and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The applicants’ article had sought to inform local readers about the conduct of an elected representative, C., who was named in that capacity. The limits of acceptable criticism in such cases were wider than in the case of a private individual and, as the article contributed to a debate on a matter of public interest, the authorities had particularly limited discretion to assess the necessity of a measure such as conviction for defamation.   The Court did not share the French courts’ view that Mr Brunet-Lecomte and Mr Tanant had not shown good faith in the article because of its “tone”, certain terms used imprudently and a lack of verification. It noted in this connection that the applicants had offered to adduce evidence in support of their allegations but their offer had been refused. Moreover, they had not made any value judgments – they had not, for example, alleged that C. was guilty – had shown a certain prudence in their expression and had not displayed any personal animosity towards C. The article had also had a sufficient factual basis, namely two reports, which, while admittedly confidential, were nevertheless consistent, and one of them had emanated from an official body. Lastly, the sums that the applicants had been ordered to pay (21,000   EUR in total) were very high for a case concerning a regional periodical.   The applicants’ conviction had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, but had been disproportionate. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.     ***   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 Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or 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) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.