CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4D3D4397 { height:3.75pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)8 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Colombani against France   (Application No. 51279/99, judgment of 25 June 2002, final on 25 September 2002)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns an infringement of the freedom of expression of the applicants (the daily newspaper Le Monde , its director and a journalist) on account of their conviction, in 1998, for insulting a foreign Head of State in application of Section 36 of the Law of 29 July 1881 on the Freedom of the Press (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with France's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 891st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (20   July   2004), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)8   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Colombani against France     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the conviction in 1998 of the daily newspaper Le Monde , its director and a journalist for having published an article about an official report prepared at the request of the Commission of the European Communities on drug production and trafficking in Morocco which implicated the King of Morocco's entourage.   The French courts found the applicants guilty of insulting a foreign head of state, under Section 36 of the Law of 29/07/1881 on the Freedom of the Press, and condemned them to pay a fine and publish the details of the conviction.   The European Court noted that unlike the provisions covering defamation in ordinary law, the offence covered by Section 36 of this law does not permit “ exceptio veritatis ” defence. The Court considered that the offence of insulting a foreign head of state was liable to inhibit freedom of expression without meeting any “pressing social need” capable of justifying such a restriction. The Court specified that it was the special protection afforded to foreign heads of state by section 36 that undermines freedom of expression, not their right to use the standard procedure available to everyone to complain if their honour or reputation has been attacked or they are subject to insulting remarks (violation of Article 10).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 4 096,46 euros   21 852,20 euros 25 948,66 euros Paid on 16/10/2003 interest paid on 21/05/2004   b) Individual measures   The sum awarded to the applicants by the Court for pecuniary damage covers the fines imposed on the applicants, the compensation awarded to the King of Morocco and the costs of reporting the decision of the domestic courts in the newspaper Le Monde.   Having regard to the criminal nature of the conviction, the applicants had the possibility of requesting the reopening of the proceedings before domestic courts, in application of Article 626-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.     II.   General measures   In a first instance, the judgment of the European Court was published and/or commented in several French Law reviews ( Légipresse No. 195, October 2002, Dalloz 2002 No. 36, Journal du droit international No. 3, 2001).   Subsequently, Law No. 2004-204 of 9 March 2004 adapting the criminal justice system to changes in criminality repealed Article 36 of the Law 29 July 1881 on the Freedom of the Press.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that France has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies