CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 octobre 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     667   3.10.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DU ROY AND MALAURIE v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case of Du Roy and Malaurie v. France. The Court held, by 6 votes to 1, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, it awarded the applicants 50,000 French francs (FRF) for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Albert Du Roy and Guillaume Malaurie, French nationals, were born in 1938 and 1952 respectively and live in Paris.   At the material time, the first applicant was the editor of and the second applicant a journalist on L’Evènement du Jeudi , a weekly magazine.   In its edition of 11 to 17 February 1993, L’Evènement du Jeudi published an article credited to the second applicant under the headline: “Sonacotra: When the left puts its house in order”. The article was in particular critical of Michel Gagneux, the former head of Sonacotra (National Company for the Construction of Workers’ Accommodation) and of his relations with new management of Sonacotra, since on 10 February 1993 the company had lodged a criminal complaint with a request that it be made a civil party to the proceedings against Mr   Gagneux for misappropriation of company assets.   On 11 March 1993 Mr Gagneux lodged a complaint against the applicants requiring them to appear before Paris Criminal Court to answer a charge of publishing information concerning the joinder of civil parties, an offence under section 2 of the law of 2 July 1931.   On a 9 July 1993 Paris Criminal Court found the applicants guilty and ordered each of them to pay a fine of FRF 3,000. They were also required to pay damages in respect of Mr   Gagneux’s civil claim and to publish the judgment. The criminal court held that the ban laid down by section 2 of the law of 2 July 1931 was general and absolute. It sufficed that the information concerned a complaint with the joinder of a civil party.   The criminal court also pointed out that the ban was intended to guarantee the presumption of innocence and to prevent any external influence on the course of justice. It concluded from that the ban was necessary in a democratic society “for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” within the meaning of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   On 16 July 1993 The applicants appealed against their conviction. On 2 February 1994 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld their conviction and the amount of the fine, but reduced the damages payable to Mr Gagneux, the civil party, to one franc.   The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation. In support of their appeal, they maintained, as they had done before the courts below, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. They referred to the general and absolute nature of the ban on publication which they submitted was disproportionate to the objective pursued. On 19 March 1996 the Court of Cassation held that the criminal proceedings had lapsed as a result of an amnesty law. They dismissed the appeal in the civil action over which they considered they retained jurisdiction.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13   September 1996. The application was declared admissible on 15 June 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Nicolas Bratza (British), judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicants complained of an infringement of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.             Decision of the Court   Article 10 of the Convention   The Court noted that journalists who report on pending criminal proceedings were required not to overstep the limits laid down in the interests of the proper administration of justice and also to respect the accused’s right to be presumed innocent. However, it observed that the interference in issue took the form of an absolute and general ban on the publication of any form of information.   The Court considered that while, as in the instant case, the domestic courts considered the ban justified in order to protect the reputation of others and to guarantee the authority of the judiciary, that justification did not appear to be sufficient since it concerned only criminal proceedings instituted following a complaint with an application by the complainant to be made a civil party to the proceedings and did not include prosecutions brought by the public prosecutor’s office or by ordinary complaint. Such a difference in treatment of the right to information did not appear to be founded on any objective basis and completely hindered the right of the press to inform the public on matters which, though concerning criminal proceedings with the joinder of a civil party, could nevertheless be in the public interest.   In the case before the Court, there was a public interest as the case concerned French political figures and their allegedly fraudulent actions in running a public company for the management of residential centres for emigrants. In any event, the Court noted that other machinery for protecting the rights of the accused existed (such as Article 9-1 of the Civil Code and Articles 11 and 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), such that the absolute ban under the Law of 1931 had been unnecessary.   In conclusion, the journalists’ conviction did not represent means that were reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued in view of the interest which a democratic society has in ensuring and maintaining press freedom. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court considered that the finding of a violation contained in the judgment itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction. It awarded the applicants FRF 50,000 for costs and expenses.   Judges Loucaides, Bratza and Costa expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   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: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (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.