CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 juin 2003

.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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA3022B31 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:17.83pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; 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     328   19.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PEDERSEN AND BAADSGAARD v. DENMARK   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark (application no. 49017/99). The Court held:   by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and   by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   At the relevant time Jørgen Pedersen and Sten Kristian   Baadsgaard, two Danish nationals from Copenhagen, born in 1939 and 1942 respectively, were journalists for Danmarks Radio , which is one of the two national TV stations in Denmark. They produced two programmes about a murder trial in which a man had been sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for murdering his wife. The programmes were broadcast on 17 September 1990 and 22 April 1991. They criticised the Frederikshaven police’s handling of the investigation. The second one showed Mr   Baadsgaard interviewing a witness – a taxi driver – during which the commentator asked the following questions: “Why did the vital part of the taxi driver’s evidence disappear and who in the police or public prosecutor’s office should carry the responsibility for this?… Was it [the named Chief Superintendent] who decided that the report should not be included in the case? Or did he and the Chief Inspector of the Flying Squad conceal the witness’s statement from the defence, the judges and the jury?” The Chief Superintendent and Chief Inspector of the Flying Squad in charge of the investigation were named and photographs of them shown. On 23 May 1991 the Chief Superintendent reported the applicants and the TV station to the police for defamation. On 29   November 1991 the Special Court of Revision decided to reopen the murder case. In the meantime, following the TV programmes, an inquiry had been started into the police investigation; the conclusion, on 20 December 1991, was that they had not complied with the statutory provision that a witness be given the opportunity to read his or her statement. The defendant in the murder trial was acquitted on 13 April 1992 after a retrial.   The journalists were formally charged with defamation on 19 January 1993. On 15   September 1995 the City Court convicted them, but did not pass sentence. Both the journalists and the prosecution appealed. On 6 March 1997 the High Court upheld their conviction and sentenced them to 20 day-fines of 400 Danish kroner (DKK) (approximately 53 euros (EUR)) and ordered them to pay DKK   75,000 (approximately EUR   10,000) compensation to the estate of the Chief Superintendent (who had since died). On 28 October 1998 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and increased the compensation to DKK   100,000 (approximately EUR 13,400).   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30   December 1998. In the summer of 1999 the second applicant died. His daughter and sole heir, Trine Baadsgaard, decided to pursue the application. Third-party comments were received from the Danish Union of Journalists on 17 December 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, about the length of the criminal proceedings against them. They also alleged, under Article 10 (freedom of expression), that the judgment of the Supreme Court upholding their conviction disproportionately interfered with their duty as journalists to play a vital role as “public watchdog” in a democratic society.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 of the Convention   The Court noted that the criminal proceedings had lasted five years, nine months and nine days. As certain features of the proceedings had been complex and time-consuming and the applicants had to some extent contributed to their length, it did not find that there had been a violation of the “reasonable time” requirement.   Article 10 of the Convention   Both parties agreed that there had been an interference with the journalists’ freedom of expression. The dispute in the case related to whether that interference had been necessary in a democratic society. The applicants argued that they had left it to viewers to decide who was responsible for the deficiencies in handling the murder case. They contended that the programmes had been serious, well-researched documentaries and, moreover, that the taxi driver’s account of events had been a crucial element in the reopening of the case and the subsequent acquittal. The Government maintained that the journalists had not been convicted for their criticism of the police, but exclusively for aiming specific, unsubstantiated and extremely serious allegations at a named individual.   The Court found, like the Supreme Court, that in the programme in question the journalists had taken a stand on the truth of the taxi driver’s statement and presented matters in such a way that viewers were given the impression that they were proven facts and that the police had suppressed evidence. The particular slant chosen by the journalists had left viewers with only two possible interpretations: vital evidence had been suppressed either by the Chief Superintendent alone or by him and the Chief Inspector of the Flying Squad jointly. The Court noted that they had not left open the possibility that the taxi driver’s evidence might have been inaccurate. Such a serious allegation could not be interpreted as a value judgment, but had consisted of a factual statement. As to whether the journalists had acted in good faith, the Court noted the unanimous findings of the Supreme Court that the truth of the allegation had never been proved. It observed that the inquiry into the police investigation had not indicated that anybody within the Frederikshaven police had suppressed any evidence in the case and there had been no indication in the police report itself that something might have been deleted from it.   The Court took into consideration that the programme had been broadcast at peak viewing time and found it doubtful that the journalists’ research had been sufficiently thorough to substantiate their concluding allegation that the Chief Superintendent had deliberately suppressed vital evidence in a murder case. The Supreme Court had clearly recognised that the case involved a conflict between the right to impart information and the reputation or rights of others and had been entitled to consider the interference necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of others.   Judge Kovler expressed a dissenting opinion and Judge Rozakis, joined by Judge Kovler and Judge Steiner, expressed a partly dissenting opinion, both of which are 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (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.