CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; 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 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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 } 378 11.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Fleury v. France (application no. 29784/06)     CONVICTION OF TOWN COUNCILLOR FOR UNDULY ACCUSING TOWN’s MAYOR OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES DID NOT BREACH HIS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION   Unanimously:   No violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Michel Fleury, is a French national who was born in 1944 and lives in Clohars-Carnoët (Finistère, France). When he was serving there as an opposition-party town councillor he was physically assaulted by a majority councillor, who was subsequently convicted as a result. Mr Fleury then requested the town’s mayor, unsuccessfully, to publish an article on the matter in the municipal newsletter. In that context, in January 2003, his political group distributed a leaflet written by Mr Fleury denouncing censorship against the group and complaining of the handling of municipal affairs by the mayor and his team. The leaflet referred among other things to questions “about manipulations by our dear leaders, who are getting their hands a bit too dirty“, mentioning a “tender commission ... whose rules were flouted” and, about an association, asking “what are we supposed to make of the council’s agenda for 7/11/02, with Mr Mayor’s wish to see M.L. represent the town in [the association]?”, and “why is that association entitled to the council’s generosity ...?”.   Following a criminal complaint lodged by the Mayor as a civil party against Mr   Fleury on grounds of defamation, the applicant was committed to stand trial in February   2004 on a charge of public defamation against a person vested with public authority. In a judgment of 16   September 2004 the Quimper Criminal Court found that the leaflet clearly accused the Mayor of embezzlement and failure to comply with the rules for awarding public procurement contracts, and that it contained accusations of criminal conduct which manifestly impugned his honour and reputation. The court held that Mr Fleury had not provided evidence of the veracity of his allegations, nor had he acted in good faith. He was thus found guilty of defamation against a citizen holding public office or entrusted with a public service and was ordered to pay 2,000 euros in damages, together with a fine of 4,000   euros. On 15   March   2005 the Rennes Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in full and further ordered Mr   Fleury to pay the Mayor 1,000 in costs and expenses. On 3 January 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying mainly on Article 10, Mr Fleury argued that he had been convicted and sentenced in breach of his right to freedom of expression   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27   June   2006.   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 (the Czech Republic), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Interference with freedom of expression was admissible only if it was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, which was the case here. The impugned measure also had to be “necessary in a democratic society” in order to fulfil that aim. That was the point that the Court had to examine in particular.   The Court first observed that the leaflet undoubtedly concerned a subject in the general interest (management of a municipality) about which Mr Fleury was entitled to impart information to the public. Moreover, in a case such as this, there were a number of reasons why freedom of expression warranted strong protection. Besides the fact that the comments related to political speech or matters of public interest, the Court emphasised that they were directed against a politician in his political capacity (against whom the limits of acceptable criticism were broader) and came from another politician belonging to an opposition party (a   circumstance that required the Court to exercise particular scrutiny).   Nevertheless, the Court noted that at the time the offending leaflet was disseminated, no public debate had been underway on the management of the municipality. Nor had the Mayor been prosecuted in that connection. Therefore, even supposing that Mr   Fleury’s comments were simply a value judgment (and not a statement of fact) it would be possible to describe them as excessive. Any value judgment was required at least to have a factual basis, which was not the case here (the French courts having considered that the conduct imputed to the Mayor was not substantiated). Lastly, the Court emphasised that the accusations against the Mayor had been extremely serious and that they could appear all the more credible as they had come from a member of the town council who was supposed to be well-informed about the management of the municipality. In those circumstances, the conviction and sentence – relatively significant – had not been disproportionate to the aim of protecting the reputation of others, and the grounds invoked to justify those measures had been relevant and sufficient.   The Court thus found that there had been no violation of Article 10.   ***   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.