CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 février 2010

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   134 18.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Taffin et Contribuables Associés v. France (application no. 42396/04)     CONVICTION ON ACCOUNT OF AN ARTICLE ACCUSING A NAMED CIVIL SERVANT OF SERIOUS IRREGULARITIES IN THE COURSE OF A TAX INSPECTION CONCERNING A CELEBRITY WAS NOT CONTRARY TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION   No violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights       Principal facts   The applicants are Benoite Taffin, a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Paris, and Contribuables Associés, a non-profit-making association. The first applicant was publication director of the magazine Tous contribuables , published by the second applicant. In 2001 the magazine published an article on the subject of a tax inspection concerning G.L., a well-known former television presenter and producer. The article, which contained an interview with G.L., named a particular tax inspector, accusing her of “forgery”, of seeking to “nail [G.L.] whatever the cost” of being “completely unaccountable” and of having “committed not just errors but serious irregularities”.   The tax inspector in question brought proceedings against G.L. and the two applicants on charges of publicly defaming a civil servant. On 9 April 2002 the Paris tribunal de grande instance found them guilty as charged. It noted that the impugned article had accused the civil servant of acting, in the course of her duties and in breach of all the legal and ethical rules, with the sole aim of pursuing a personal vendetta, and that it had damaged her honour and reputation. The court took the view that the truth of the accusations levelled against the civil servant had not been proved, any more than Ms Taffin’s assertions that she had acted in good faith. Ms Taffin and G.L. were each ordered to pay a fine of 1,500 euros (EUR) and were ordered jointly and severally to pay EUR 1 in damages and EUR 1,200 for costs and expenses. The association Contribuables Associés was found civilly liable. Ms Taffin and G.L. appealed. Following the latter’s death, the civil party withdrew her claims against him. On 23 October 2003 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment and also ordered Ms Taffin to pay EUR 500 in appeal costs. On 25 May 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by Ms Taffin.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Ms Taffin and the association Contribuables Associés submitted that their conviction for defamation had breached their right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 November 2004.   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), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges ,   and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   As the association Contribuables Associés had not appealed against its conviction, it had not exhausted the remedies available to it in France in order to complain of the alleged infringement of its freedom of expression. Accordingly, its application was inadmissible and only Ms Taffin’s application was examined on the merits.   For a restriction on freedom of expression to be compatible with the Convention, it had to be prescribed by law and pursue a legitimate aim (such as protecting the reputation or rights of others). Both these requirements were met in the instant case. It also had to be based on relevant and sufficient reasons and be proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. It was the Court’s task to ascertain whether this had been the case in relation to Ms Taffin’s conviction.   The Court reiterated that freedom of expression entailed “duties and responsibilities” which also applied to the media, even in relation to issues of serious public concern. These duties and responsibilities were particularly far-reaching where there was a risk of damaging the reputation of a named person and of adversely affecting the “rights of others”. The media therefore had a duty in principle to verify the accuracy (or at least the degree of credibility) of factual statements that were defamatory of individuals, and to take into consideration their right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.   It could not escape the Court’s attention that Ms Taffin had not succeeded in demonstrating the truth of her accusations or her good faith before the French courts. The Court stressed the extremely serious nature of the accusations against the civil servant and also the fact that the article had related merely to a private dispute between a public figure and a civil servant and had not been aimed at providing general information on taxation matters.   The Court further emphasised that, in order to discharge their duties, civil servants had to enjoy public confidence in conditions free of undue disturbance. It could therefore prove necessary to afford them special protection against offensive verbal attacks when on duty.   In view of all these considerations the Court took the view that Ms Taffin’s conviction and penalty (the “nature and severity” of which it had weighed up) had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and that the reasons given by the French courts for the impugned measures had been relevant and sufficient. It had therefore been reasonable for the domestic authorities to consider that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society to protect the reputation and rights of others.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. 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 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.