CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 février 2004

.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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   064 10.02.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING: SELISTÖ v. FINLAND & KARHUVAARA AND ILTALEHTI v. FINLAND   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today, Tuesday 10 February 2004 at 9.30 a.m., on the admissibility and the merits in the cases of: Selistö v. Finland (application   no. 56767/00) and Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland (53678/00).   The applicants   The applicant in Selistö v. Finland is Seija Selistö, a Finnish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Vaasa (Finland). She works as a journalist on the regional daily newspaper Pohjalainen , which is published in Vaasa.   The applicants in Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland are: a publishing company called Kustannusosakeyhtiö Iltalehti (Iltalehti), based in Helsinki, which publishes the national daily tabloid newspaper Iltalehti – with a circulation of about 120,000 - and the publishing company’s editor-in-chief, Pekka Karhuvaara, a Finnish national, born in 1954 and living in Helsinki.   Summary of the facts   Selistö Ms Selistö, was convicted and fined for having defamed a surgeon, X., by writing two articles alleging that a patient had died in Seinäjoki Central Hospital on 7 December 1992, as a result of the surgeon’s alcohol consumption during the night preceding the operation. The patient’s widower had filed a criminal complaint, but the county prosecutor had decided not to press charges, given a lack of evidence.   Ms Selistö’s articles, published in January and February 1996, contained interviews with the head doctors of various hospitals concerning the safeguards in place to protect patients against surgery performed by someone in an intoxicated or otherwise inappropriate state.   The domestic courts found that, although X. had not been named, local people could have identified him from the applicant’s articles, which gave an overly provocative and one-sided version of events and the suspicions against the surgeon.   On 14 September 1998 the applicant was convicted of defamation and sentenced to 25 daily income-based fines totalling 4.150 Finnish Marks (FIM) (698 euros (EUR)). She and the newspaper’s editor-in-chief were also ordered to reimburse jointly the complainant’s legal costs of FIM 20,276 (EUR 3,410.20). On 26 May 1999 Vaasa Court of Appeal, after a re-hearing, found the applicant guilty of continued defamation. Her sentence was increased to 50 daily fines, totalling FIM 8,300 (EUR 1,396). On 18 October 1999 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.   Karhuvaara and Iltalehti On 31 October 1996 an article appeared in Iltalehti about a criminal trial concerning Mr A.’s drunken and disorderly behaviour and an assault on a police officer. Follow-up stories were published on 21   November and 10 December 1996, reporting that Mr A. was the husband of a Member of the Finnish Parliament and Chair of its Committee for Education and Culture and that he had been given a six-month suspended prison sentence.   The trial was widely publicised and discussed locally and the role of Mrs A., who was not involved in the criminal proceedings, became the subject of, among other things, a television programme on the main national television channel specialising in political satire.   In April 1997 Mrs A. brought proceedings against the applicants for libel and an infringement of her privacy. She relied on Section 15 of the Parliament Act ( valtiopäiväjärjestys, Riksdagsordning ), under which criminal offences violating MPs rights during parliamentary sessions are treated as having been committed in particularly aggravating circumstances.   The defendants in the case argued that: the only mention of Mrs A. was that she was married to Mr A., that the case had already been published locally and that their articles contained no new information. Mr Karhuvaara admitted to being only superficially aware of the type of material which had been published. However, under Section 32 of the Freedom of the Press Act ( painovapauslaki, tryckfrihetslag ), as an editor-in-chief, he was held responsible for any original material published in his newspaper.   On 27 March 1998 Mr Karhuvaara was convicted of infringement of privacy under particularly aggravating circumstances, within the meaning of Section 15 of the Parliament Act, and ordered to pay FIM 47,360 (approximately EUR 7,965). The defendants in the case were also ordered to pay damages of FIM   175,000 (approximately EUR 29,400). The defamation charges were dismissed. The court found that it was the nation-wide publicity that had essentially constituted the criminal offence in question. On 3 December 1998 Helsinki Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment.   Complaints   All the applicants complain of a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Mr Karhuvaara and Iltalehti complain under Article 6   §   2 (presumption of innocence) that the Freedom of Press Act creates a presumption of guilt against editors-in-chief. Ms Selistö also complains of a breach of her right to a fair trial under Article 6.   Procedure   In the case of Selistö the application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on the 9 April 2000 and in the case of Karhuvaara and Iltalehti the application was lodged on 20 November 1999.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), judges , Lech Garlicki (Polish) ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Arto Kosonen , Agent , Ilari Hannula , Leena Leikas , Advisers ;   Applicants :   Matti Wuori , Counsel , Risto Ryti , Adviser .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility and, if applicable, judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.