CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 avril 2010

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBA1DA037 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBACB3D60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .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 } 283 06.04.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   CGIL and Cofferati v. Italy (no. 2) (application no. 2/08)   APPLICANTS DEPRIVED OF ACCESS TO COURT ON ACCOUNT OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY   Violation of Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing ) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants are Sergio Cofferati, an Italian national who lives in Italy, and the CGIL ( Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro – Italian General Confederation of Labour), an Italian trade-union federation of which Mr Cofferati was general secretary.   On 19 March 2002 Mr Biagi, an adviser to the Minister of Labour and a supporter of greater flexibility in employment contracts, was murdered by the Red Brigades. During a debate in Parliament the following day, references were made to the alleged link between terrorism, social issues and trade-union campaigns concerning the reform of labour law.   On the same day, a member of parliament, Mr Taormina, told the ADNKronos press agency that “Cofferati and the communists [had created] favourable conditions for the terrorists to make themselves available” and that “Biagi’s murderers [had] offered to act as enforcers for Cofferati and the communists”.   On 23 March 2002 a demonstration organised by the CGIL was held in Rome to protest against the plan to repeal section 18 of the Workers’ Charter, by which employees deemed to have been unfairly dismissed were entitled to apply for reinstatement.   On 15 May 2002 the applicants brought an action for damages against Mr Taormina, arguing that his statements had harmed their reputation. They alleged that the article reporting his comments had suggested that there was a causal link between their trade ‑ union activity and Mr Biagi’s murder and had insinuated that the terrorists had come from a trade-union background.   The Chamber of Deputies confirmed that Mr Taormina was entitled to immunity, since in its view he had expressed his opinions in the course of his duties as an MP. The Rome District Court, however, disagreed and raised a conflict of State powers before the Constitutional Court. On 7 November 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible as having no factual basis.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicants complained that their right of access to a court had been infringed because it had been impossible for their action against an MP to succeed on account of his parliamentary immunity.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30   November   2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Since the Chamber of Deputies had declared that the statements by Mr Taormina were covered by parliamentary immunity, the applicants had been prevented from pursuing any proceedings to establish the MP’s liability and obtain redress. They had therefore suffered interference with their right of access to a court.   The Court reiterated that that right was not absolute but could be subject to limitations provided that they pursued a legitimate aim and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. Since parliamentary immunity was a long-standing practice which sought to enable free parliamentary debate and to maintain the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, the interference with the applicants’ rights had pursued a legitimate aim.   The offending statements by Mr Taormina had not, strictly speaking, been linked to the performance of his parliamentary duties, having been made during press interviews and not in a legislative chamber. Furthermore, it did not appear that Mr Taormina had pointed to any moral or political responsibility on the applicants’ part for Mr Biagi's murder. His statements to ADNKronos had suggested, rather, that they bore some responsibility for the climate of social tension that had led to the murder. However, to justify denying access to court on the ground that a quarrel might have political implications would amount to restricting the right of access to a court whenever allegedly defamatory statements had been made by a member of parliament.   The Court also attached weight to the fact that, following the Constitutional Court’s judgment in 2007, the applicants had had no reasonable alternative means to protect effectively their rights under the Convention.   Accordingly, by granting immunity to Mr Taormina, and thereby frustrating the action brought by the applicants to protect their reputation, the authorities had not struck a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. The Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Italy was to pay the applicants 8,000   euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 8,000 jointly for costs and expenses.   Judges Sajó and Karakaş expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy judgment of 24 February 2009 .   ***   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 Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) 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.