CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 juin 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } 441 01.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain (application no. 16023/07)     UNJUSTIFED CONVICTION FOR PUBLICATION OF AN ARTICLE IMPLICATING THE KING OF MOROCCO IN DRUG TRAFFICKING   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, José Luis Gutiérrez Suárez, is a Spanish national living in Madrid.   At the material time he was the publication director of the daily newspaper Diario 16 in which an article was published in 1995 entitled “Five tons of hashish discovered in a consignment belonging to Hassan II’s company”   and referred to on the first page under the headline “A   family company belonging to Hassan II implicated in drug trafficking”. The article was about the seizure in Algesiras of 4,638   kilograms of hashish found in the false bottom of a lorry transporting fruit for Domaines Royaux , a company belonging to the Alaouite royal family.   King Hassan II applied to a Madrid court of first instance, which ruled on 25   November   1997 that there had been an interference with the fundamental right to respect for the king’s reputation. It found that the title of the article had been tendentious and pointed out that a court decision of 1996 had established that the drug traffickers in question had had no connection with the Domaines Royaux company. The author of the article, the applicant and the publisher were sentenced to a fine and ordered to publish the judgment in the newspaper.   Mr Gutiérrez Suárez unsuccessfully appealed to the Cadix Audiencia provincial , which held that the information published had not been checked against the results of the investigations or the case file on the criminal proceedings, then nearly completed. The Supreme Court also upheld the subsequent decisions, finding that the defamatory statements were contained in the headlines of the articles, which “led the average reader to believe that the Moroccan royal family had been an accomplice to illegal trafficking in hashish”. The applicant lodged an appeal on grounds of unconstitutionality ( amparo appeal ) with the Constitutional Court, which referred to its case-law on the importance of press headlines and concluded that those in question, which were by their nature short, had sown doubts in the mind of the public regarding the reputation of the royal family. It dismissed Mr   Gutiérrez Suárez’s   appeal.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained of his conviction for publishing an article on drug trafficking that implicated the Moroccan royal family. Under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complained of an infringement of his right to adduce all evidence in the preparation of his defence and of having been convicted despite having been neither the author of the article nor the owner of the newspaper.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 April 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), Judges, and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been justified by the authorities on the basis of Article 18 of the Constitution and a Law of 1982 on the protection of the right to honour, personal and family intimacy and personal image and also by the existence of the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of the King of Morocco.   The information in question was a matter of general interest. The Spanish public had the right to be informed about drug trafficking in which the Moroccan royal family appeared to be involved, a matter that had moreover been the subject of an investigation before the Spanish criminal courts. The Court reiterated that the subject matter of court trials could be the subject of discussion in the press or among the public in general.   The Spanish courts had not denied that the information published in the article was true. The Supreme Court had stated that the headlines and not the information itself had been defamatory. The Court considered that the headline and the content of the article should be viewed as a whole. It noted that, whilst the headline had been designed to attract the reader’s attention, the information in the body of article was true. It also pointed out that it was not its task, or that of the domestic courts, to determine which journalistic techniques should be used and that journalistic freedom covered recourse to a degree of exaggeration.   Furthermore, the author of the article had made reference to information available to her at the time. Provided that journalists acted in good faith and that the information imparted was true, they could not be expected – at the risk of compromising the vital role of “public watchdog” of the press – to undertake independent research.   Accordingly, the restriction on the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been proportionate to the potential seriousness of the damage to the reputation in question. The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The applicant’s other complaints were inadmissible because they had not been raised before the Spanish courts.   As the applicant had not submitted a request for just satisfaction (Article 41) within the time allowed, the Court did not make any award under that head.   ***   Judge Zupančič indicated that he dissented.   ***   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 .   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 .