CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } 331 22.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Haguenauer v. France (application no. 34050/05)   LOCAL COUNCILLOR’S CONVICTION FOR REMARKS MADE DURING A DEMONSTRATION INFRINGED HER FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Evelyne Haguenauer, is a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Ecully (France). She was a deputy mayor of Lyons at the relevant time. In March 2002 she participated in a demonstration that took place when the Chancellor of Jean Moulin University of Lyons III was awarded the Légion d’honneur. The demonstrators claimed that the chancellor had shown an indulgent attitude towards the racist and negationist positions defended by some of the university’s teaching staff. One of the university lecturers shouted at the demonstrators, saying “it’s scandalous what you are saying. I am proud to be Jewish and proud to be at Lyons III”. The applicant, herself of Jewish faith, replied “you put the community to shame”.   The lecturer took out a summons against Mrs Haguenauer to appear before the Lyons Criminal Court for insulting a civil servant (an offence under the Press Act of 1881). On 18   December 2003 the Criminal Court held that the criminal limb of the offence was covered by an amnesty law of 6 August 2002. With regard to the civil limb, it dismissed the lecturer’s claim for damages. However, on 24 June 2004 the Lyons Court of Appeal set that judgment aside in respect of the civil provisions. It found that the remarks made by the applicant in public had been aimed at the lecturer in his capacity as a member of the teaching staff at Jean Moulin University of Lyons III, and thus as a representative of the administration. It ordered Mrs Haguenauer to pay 3,000 euros (EUR) in damages and EUR   2,500 in court costs. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and ordered her to pay an additional sum of EUR 2,500 in court costs.   On 15 November 2001 the Minister of Education had set up a commission of historians to study the issue of racism and negationism at Jean-Moulin University of Lyons III. The commission issued a 263-page report, which included the following sentence in its conclusions: “These data have definitively transformed a university problem into a public problem, making it into an issue of general scope reaching beyond local boundaries: our report itself is an indication of that”.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10, Mrs Haguenauer complained that her conviction had amounted to an excessive infringement of her right to freedom of expression.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15   September   2005.   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, Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), judges , and of Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   An infringement of freedom of expression was not acceptable unless it was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, which was clearly the case here. The measure in question also had to be capable of being considered as “necessary in a democratic society”. It was particularly with regard to the latter point that the Court would exercise its supervision in this case.   The Court reiterated first of all that civil servants acting in their official capacity were subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than ordinary individuals (even though it could prove necessary to provide civil servants with special protection from offensive verbal attacks because they had to have the confidence of the general public without being unduly perturbed).   The Court went on to say that in the present case the remarks made by Mrs Haguenauer related to a matter of general interest (the fight against racism and negationism) and were part of an extremely important public debate (the attitude of Jean Moulin University of Lyons III towards lecturers who had aroused controversy for the views they defended). Furthermore, there was no doubt that Mrs Haguenauer had made the remarks in her capacity as local councillor; they had thus been a form of political or “militant” expression. In those circumstances the latitude available to the authorities in assessing the need to convict the applicant was particularly limited. The Court reiterated the principle that there had to be possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. It also noted that the remarks in question had been made orally, during a demonstration, as part of a swift exchange of words, and held that the lecturer’s incisive remarks could have influenced the tone used when replying to him.   Above all, the Court found that it was of crucial importance to resituate Mrs Haguenauer’s remarks in the context of the debate raging at the time in Lyons and at national level, as could be seen from the fact that a commission of historians had been set up by the Ministry of Education to study the issue, and from that commission’s report.   Lastly, account also had to be taken of the severity of the penalty imposed on Mrs   Haguenauer.   Having regard to all those factors, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that France was to reimburse Mrs   Haguenauer the sums she had been ordered to pay during the proceedings in question, namely, EUR 8,000, for pecuniary damage, and also EUR   2,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR   8,300 for costs and expenses.   ***   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.