CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 avril 1995

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. April 1995 Prager and Oberschlick v. Autriche - 15974/90 Judgment 26.4.1995 Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction of a journalist and a publisher for defamation of a judge: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government's preliminary objection (lack of status of "victim") Publisher personally convicted for having published the article in his periodical - he had been directly affected by the decisions of the national courts - could claim to be victim of alleged violation. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits Not in dispute that there had been an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression - necessary to establish whether interference was justified. 1.   "Prescribed by law" Article 111 of the Criminal Code and section 29 of the Media Act had the characteristics of "law" - uncertainties linked to the application in this instance of these provisions had not exceeded what the applicants could expect, if need be after having sought appropriate advice. 2.   Whether aim pursued was legitimate Protection of the reputation of others and upholding the authority of the judiciary. 3.   Necessity of the interference Pre-eminent role of press in a State governed by the rule of law - responsibility to impart information on the functioning of the system of justice - judiciary must enjoy public confidence in carrying out its duties: it may be necessary to protect such confidence against destructive attacks that are essentially unfounded. Some of allegations made by applicant had been of an extremely serious nature - he had accused, by implication, judges of having broken the law or breached their professional obligations - could have damaged the reputation of those concerned and undermined public confidence in the integrity of judiciary as a whole - excessive breadth of accusations, in the absence of sufficient factual basis. Lack of good faith and failure to respect ethics of journalism - research conducted not sufficient to substantiate such serious allegations. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four). II.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 10 Complaint not raised before the Court. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaint (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes