CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 March 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 79225/16 Martin VOKÁČ against the Czech Republic lodged on 13 December 2016 communicated on 23 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, a journalist, for defamation on account of an online article containing false and defamatory statements about a police officer. The applicant was imposed a suspended sentence of ten months’ imprisonment, with a probationary period of two years. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the courts failed to establish that the description of the events in the article at issue had been entirely incorrect or invented or that the intrinsic aim of the article had been to damage the reputation of the police officer concerned. He further asserts that the criminal sanction imposed on him amounted to a disproportionate interference with his journalistic freedom of expression.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, and in particular of his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, considering that the applicant was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment, was the sanction imposed proportionate in its nature and severity (see, among many authorities, Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR   2004 XI, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan , no. 40984/07, 22 April 2010, and Sallusti v. Italy , no. 22350/13, 7 March 2019)?