CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s75E6A93A { width:13.33pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     504   17.10.02   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF STAMBUK v. GERMANY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Stambuk v. Germany (application no. 37928/97). The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Miro Stambuk, born in 1943 and living in Blaubeuren, is an ophthalmologist.   In May   1994 a journalist from the newspaper Schwäbische Zeitung interviewed the applicant about a new form of laser treatment, photorefractive keratotomy, performed by him. On 26 September 1994, an article and photograph appeared in the paper, under the headline “Cornea under fire - laser restores full vision”. The article stated that the risks were low and that the applicant had treated more than 400   patients with a 100% success rate.   On 25 October 1995 Tübingen District Disciplinary Court for Medical Practitioners ( Bezirksberufsgericht für Ärzte ) fined the applicant 2,000 German marks for disregarding the ban on advertising for medical practioners - the Baden-Württemberg Rules of Professional Conduct of the Medical Practitioners’ Council ( Berufsordnung der Landesärztekammer ) and the Act on the Councils for the Medical Professions ( Heilberufe ‑ Kammergesetz ).     According to the Court, the applicant had disregarded these rules in that his aim had been self-promotion; the photograph and self-praise found in the text conveyed the message that the applicant was a particularly experienced medical practitioner. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 30 August 1997 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 22 November 2001.     Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), President , Georg Ress (German), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint The applicant alleged that the disciplinary punishment imposed on him for assisting with a press article on his work violated his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 10 The European Court of Human Rights observed that medical practitioners had a duty of care towards the individual and the local community which might explain certain restrictions on their conduct, including rules on their public communications or participation in public communications on professional issues. However, these rules of conduct in relation to the press had to be balanced against the legitimate interest of the public to obtain information. They should not be interpreted as putting an excessive burden on medical practitioners to control the content of press publications.   The Court also recalled the essential role of the press in a democratic society, its duty being to impart – in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities – information and ideas on all matters of public interest.       The Court noted that the article concerned a new laser operation technique to correct the defective vision of patients, which provided public information on a matter of general medical interest.     The article presented on the whole a balanced explanation of the technique in question which necessarily included indications as to the risk involved and its success rate. The German courts did not find that the applicant’s statements in this respect, as reproduced in the article, were incorrect or misleading as to the necessity or advisability of such treatment. The statement on the success rate clearly referred to the applicant’s own experience in the past and the title also indicated that the operation risks were low.   Moreover, in the Court’s view, the illustration of an article in the press with a photograph, showing the applicant in his professional context, could not be regarded as amounting to prohibited and non-objective information or misleading advertising. Indeed, the photograph was closely related to the contents of the article.   In the Court’s opinion, it was not possible to isolate the passage in the article concerning the applicant’s past success rate and the appearance of the accompanying photograph from the article as a whole in order to justify taking disciplinary action for a breach of professional duties. The article may well have had the effect of giving publicity to the applicant and his practice, but, this was not the main purpose of the article.   The German disciplinary courts’ strict interpretation of the ban on advertising in the medical profession in this case contravened the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.     The Court added that imposing a fine, even if at the lower end of the scale of fines, was not a negligible disciplinary punishment.   The Court therefore found that the German courts did not strike a fair balance between the interests at stake, namely the protection of health, the interests of other medical practitioners, the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the role of the press. The interference complained of was therefore not proportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society” for the “protection of health” and the “protection of the rights of others”.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts :   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.