CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 mai 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 364 06.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1]   Brunet Lecomte and Lyon Mag v. France (application no. 17265/05)   UNJUSTIFIED CONVICTION FOR DEFAMATION FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF ARTICLE ON ISLAMIST NETWORKS IN LYONS AREA   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression ) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants are Philippe Brunet Lecomte, a French national who was born in 1954 and lives in Lyons (France), and the company that publishes the magazine Lyon Mag’ , whose registered office is in Lyons.   Mr Brunet Lecomte is the publication director of the monthly news magazine Lyon Mag’ . The October 2001 issue was entitled “ Exclusive, SOFRES poll, Local Muslims and Terrorism. Report: Should we be afraid of Lyons’ Islamist networks? ”. Filling three-quarters of the magazine’s cover page was a photograph of T. with the caption “ T., one of the most influential Muslim leaders in Lyons ”. An article about him (“ The Ambiguous Mr T. ”) indicated among other things that in 1995, together with his brother H. with whom he was running the Islamist Centre in Geneva, which had become the meeting point for European Islamists according to French intelligence, T. had been banned from entering France.   On a complaint by T., the Lyons Criminal Court found the article defamatory but acquitted the applicants and dismissed T.’s civil suit on account of their good faith. The Court of Appeal set aside that judgment in 2003, finding that the charge of public defamation against an individual was made out. It ordered Mr Lecomte to pay 2,500   euros (EUR) in damages to T. and found the second applicant civilly liable for the offence. In analysing the content of the article, the court noted in particular the insinuation that T. could be a leader recruiting “frustrated and vulnerable” young people who were easily influenced by “radical discourse”. In 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying, in particular, on Article 10, the applicants complained about their conviction for defamation following the publication of an article about the Islamist networks in Lyons in   2001.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6   May   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), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Judges,   And also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The interference with the applicants’ exercise of their right to freedom of expression, constituted by their conviction, had been based on the French freedom of the press legislation.   The offending articles had contributed to a debate in the general interest at the time – they were published shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center – and the Court thus took the view that the authorities had only limited discretion to restrict the applicants’ freedom of expression.   The Court further noted that whilst the domestic courts had analysed the terminology and insinuations in the articles, it was also appropriate to consider their context, namely the publication of a series of articles resulting from a three-week investigation into the Islamist networks of the Lyons area.   Furthermore, the articles did not systematically make direct reference to T. and had shown prudence by, for example, distinguishing between Islam and Islamism. Whilst T. had been given a prominent place in the magazine, in both text and pictures, he had not been targeted by any personal animosity and the acceptable degree of exaggeration in matters of journalistic freedom had not been exceeded, especially as T, being an active lecturer, could expect a close examination of his statements. Lastly, the offending remarks were not devoid of factual basis because numerous documents showing the danger posed by T.’s statements had been submitted to the Court.   Therefore, the applicants’ interest in imparting and the public’s in receiving information about a subject in the general interest and its repercussions for the Lyons area as a whole, prevailed over T.’s right to the protection of his reputation. The Court further found that the award of EUR   2,500 in damages was disproportionate. The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   ***   As the applicants had not submitted any request for just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention) within the time allowed, the Court did not make an award under that head.   Judges Lorenzen and Berro-Lefèvre expressed a dissenting opinion, which is appended to the judgment.   ***   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. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .