CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 avril 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 } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .s34B51DD { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 }   282 06.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Ruokanen and Others v. Finland (application no. 45130/06)   JOURNALISTS, CONVICTED OF DEFAMATION, SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED ACCURACY OF RAPE ACCUSATION   No violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants, Heikki Tapani Ruokanen and Petri Ensio Pöntinen, are two Finnish nationals – an editor-in-chief and a journalist – who live, respectively, in Helsinki and Tampere, and a Finnish limited liability publishing company based in Helsinki.   The case concerned an article published on 11 May 2001 in Suomen Kuvalehti magazine announced on the cover page by “ Baseball winning party ended in rape ”.   The article stated that an adult student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The article was based on a statement given by the victim to her folk high school and was corroborated by several witnesses interviewed by the applicants but who wished to remain anonymous. It was also mentioned that the young woman did not wish for the time being to report the incident to the police.   A police investigation, launched after publication of the article, was suspended as the victim of the alleged rape could not identify the offender or offenders.   In October 2002 the public prosecutor brought charges for aggravated defamation against Mr Ruokanen and Mr Pöntinen; a compensation claim brought by the baseball team was joined to those criminal charges. In March 2003 the applicants were found guilty as charged and were ordered to pay fines of 3,540 and 1,920   euros (EUR) and over EUR 80,000 in total in damages to compensate each member of the baseball team. The court found in particular that the statement made by the rape victim had not been reliable as she had not brought the issue to the police’s attention and concluded that the accusations in the article had been of such a serious nature that the applicants should have verified their accuracy more carefully.   On appeal the court upheld that decision also finding that the applicants had not been able to show that they had had sufficient reasons to believe that the accusations were true and, by not revealing their sources, had taken the risk of being convicted of defamation.   In May 2006 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complained about their conviction of defamation.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8   November   2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   What was essentially at stake in this case was whether the domestic authorities had struck the required balance between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime.   The Court noted that the baseball players had been easily identifiable from the article and could thereby suffer damage to their reputation. Notably, they belonged to the local sports club which had been mentioned by name in the article and, as members of the winning team of the 2000 championship, they would be known in their home town, by baseball fans and by a larger public.   Furthermore, the allegations had been of a serious nature and had been presented as statements of fact rather than value judgments. Moreover, the applicants had failed to verify whether their accusations had had a basis in fact, even though they could have clarified the issue by contacting the victim, the players and their team. The article, written before the criminal investigation into the alleged rape, had not only violated the players’ right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty but had also defamed them by stating a fact which had not yet been established.   Indeed, imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an incident was reported by the media to the public as fact. The right to presumption of innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned.   In conclusion, the reasons relied on by the domestic courts had been sufficient to show that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. Also bearing in mind that the sanctions imposed, which fell within a State’s discretion to respond to defamation, had been proportionate, the Court considered that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the competing interests involved.   Accordingly, the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 10.   Judges Bratza and Bianku expressed dissenting opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Further information about the Court can be found on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int )   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 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.