CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 779 20.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Alves da Silva v. Portugal (application no. 41665/07 )   CONVICTION FOR A SATIRICAL WORK DISPLAYED AT A CARNIVAL WAS CONTRARY TO THE 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 applicant 4,445   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, in reimbursement of the sums paid following his conviction, EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Ricardo Alves da Silva, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1949 and lives in Mortágua (Portugal). On 24 February 2004 Mr   Alfonso Abrantes, the mayor of Mortágua, lodged a criminal complaint against him for defamation. Mr   Alves da Silva was prosecuted for driving around Mortágua during the carnival on 22 and 24 Feburary 2004 in a van displaying a puppet, a sign bearing an anagram of the mayor’s name and a blue bag (an image that, in Portugal, evokes illegal sums of money that have not been properly accounted for), and broadcasting a pre-recorded satirical message suggesting that the mayor had acted unlawfully.   After an initial decision by an investigating judge not to commit Mr   Alves da Silva to trial, on 27   April 2005 the Coimbra Court of Appeal did finally refer the case to the Santa Comba Dão District Court. On 5 July 2006 the applicant was convicted of defamation with aggravating circumstances and ordered to pay a fine, damages and legal costs of EUR   4,445. The Coimbra Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 21   March 2007, finding that his actions had nothing to do with the exercise of his freedom of expression but had been motivated by a plain desire to slander the mayor.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant alleged, in particular, that his conviction for defamation had interfered with his freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article   10, particularly as the form of expression used had been satirical and the message conveyed in the context of carnival festivities. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17   September 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), judges , and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The interference with Mr Alves da Silva’s right to freedom of expression occasioned by his criminal conviction was prescribed by the Criminal Code and pursued a legitimate aim (protection of the reputation or rights of others). However, it was disproportionate to that aim.   The message conveyed by Mr Alves da Silva was quite clearly satirical in nature, namely, a form of artistic expression and social commentary which, through its exaggeration and distortion of reality, naturally sought to provoke a reaction. It could hardly be taken literally – particularly as it had been delivered in the context of a carnival – and even if this had been the case, the mayor should, as a politician, have shown a greater degree of tolerance towards criticism.   The Court considered that imposing a criminal penalty for conduct such as that of Mr Alves da Silva in the present case could deter satirical forms of expression relating to topical issues. Such forms of expression could play a very important role in the free discussion of questions of public interest, without which there was no democratic society.   Having weighed society’s interest in securing Mr Alves da Silva’s conviction against the effect of that conviction on him, 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.