CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 novembre 2016

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 201 November 2016 Karapetyan and Others v. Armenia - 59001/08 Judgment 17.11.2016 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Dismissal of diplomats for alleging in public that a presidential election had been fraudulent: no violation Facts – A presidential election was held in Armenia in February 2008. Immediately following the election the opposition candidate announced that it had been rigged and nationwide protests were organised by his supporters. Several ambassadors for Armenia made a statement setting out their concern and calling on television companies to ensure impartial and comprehensive coverage. The following day, the applicants, professional diplomats, issued a joint statement alleging that the election had been fraudulent. Their statement, along with their names and official titles, was reported by several mass-media outlets. The applicants were subsequently dismissed from office. The applicants complained under Article   10 that their dismissal had violated their right to freedom of expression. Law – Article 10: The applicants’ dismissal amounted to an interference with their right to freedom of expression. That interference pursued the legitimate aims of protecting national security and public safety and the prevention of disorder and was prescribed by law. As to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society the Court found that measures directed at the need to preserve the political neutrality of civil servants could in principle be considered legitimate and proportionate for the purposes of Article   10. However, such measures should not be applied in a general manner which could affect the essence of the right protected, without having in mind the functions and the role of the civil servant in question, and, in particular, the circumstances of each case. A special bond of trust and loyalty between a civil servant and the State was important, in particular in the case of diplomats who were especially expected to be loyal. That was a particularly important element in societies which were in the process of building up the institutions of a pluralistic democracy. In view of the particular history of a Contracting State, the national authorities could, so as to ensure the consolidation and maintenance of democracy, consider it necessary to have constitutional safeguards to achieve the aim of having a politically neutral body of civil servants, including a diplomatic corps, by restricting the freedom of civil servants to engage in political activities. It was of particular importance that all four applicants occupied high-ranking positions within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that their names, with an explicit reference to their official titles, appeared on their statement. In its assessment on whether to institute disciplinary proceedings and proceed with dismissals, the respondent State was entitled to have regard to the requirement that high-ranking civil servants respected and ensured the special bond of trust and loyalty between them and the State in the performance of their functions. The domestic courts had taken into account the applicants’ right to freedom of expression in its overall assessment of the applicants’ claims in a manner sufficiently in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. Viewing the particular circumstances as a whole, no evidence had been adduced that could call into question the respondent State’s assessment. The dismissal of the applicants, although severe, did not constitute a disproportionate measure and had been based on relevant and sufficient grounds. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). (See also Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], 25390/94 , 20   May 1999; and Baka v.   Hungary , 20261/12, 23   June 2016, Information Note   197 )   © 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