CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .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 } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .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 }   791 22.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Europapress Holding d.o.o. v. Croatia (application no. 25333/06 )   OBLIGATION TO ESTABLISH TRUTH OF DEFAMATORY ALLEGATIONS OF FACT NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE   10   No violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant company, Europapress Holding d.o.o., is the biggest newspaper and magazine publishing company in Croatia.   In February 1996 its most prominent weekly publication, the news magazine Globus , published an article reporting on an incident in a government building a week earlier, during which the then Minister of Finance and deputy Prime Minister, B.Š., displeased with an article by the journalist E.V., had allegedly told her that she should be killed. The article also suggested that B.Š. had later taken a handgun from a security officer and pointed its barrel at E.V., saying that he would kill her, after which he had laughed at his own joke. An account of the alleged incident was subsequently published by two daily newspapers. A criminal complaint and an action for damages lodged by E.V. against B.Š. were dismissed on the grounds that she was unable to prove that there had been a serious threat to her life.   In May 1996 B.Š. brought a civil action for defamation against the applicant company before Zagreb Municipal Court. During the proceedings the court heard several eyewitnesses and in February 1998 partially granted B.Š.’s claim. It held that the published information had been untrue and that the author of the article, who had not been present during the incident, had not properly verified its accuracy. In particular, the court found that B.Š. had not held the handgun. It ordered the applicant company to pay B.Š. 100,000   Croatian   kunas   (HRK) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment was subsequently upheld by the Zagreb County Court, which reduced the amount of damages to be paid to HRK   60,000 (the equivalent of 8,000   euros   (EUR)), and by the Supreme Court. In November 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant company, finding no violation of its right to freedom of expression.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant company complained that the domestic courts’ decisions had violated its right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article   10 of the Convention. In particular it considered that the courts had imposed a standard of proof that was impossible to meet and therefore jeopardised the role of the press in a democratic society. The company also argued that the damages it was ordered to pay were disproportionate.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 May 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges ,   and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that it was not incompatible with Article 10 to place on a respondent in defamation proceedings the burden of proving that the defamatory statements were substantially true. The article in Globus had made specific allegations of fact concerning the politician B.Š., which the author of the article had adopted as his own, without reference to a source. The applicant company, which had published them and did not claim that they amounted to value judgments, was therefore liable for their truthfulness.   As to the assessment of evidence, the eyewitnesses’ testimony, the Court did not find any reason to depart from the findings of the domestic courts that the information published in the article had been incorrect. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant company had moreover been under a special obligation to verify them. However, the company had not at any point in the proceedings produced evidence that the Globus journalist had, as they claimed, tried to contact B.Š.’s office or any of the eyewitnesses. The Court therefore agreed with the domestic courts that the applicant company had not properly verified the published information. The reasons for ordering the applicant company to pay damages had hence been relevant and sufficient.   Regarding the award of damages and their amount, the Court pointed out that the payment was ordered against the applicant company, the biggest newspaper publisher in the country, and not against an individual journalist. It also noted that the domestic courts awarded less than one fifth of the damages sought by B.Š. On that account it held that the domestic courts’ decisions were proportionate to the injury to reputation suffered.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10.     ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) 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) 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. [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.