CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 106 March 2008 Azevedo v. Portugal - 20620/04 Judgment 27.3.2008 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Imposition of a fine, with imprisonment in default, on the applicant, who was a researcher and the co-author of a book, for the criminal libel of the author of a scientific work on the same subject: violation   Facts : The applicant was the co-author of a book entitled Gardens of the Episcopal Palace of Castelo Branco , published by the municipal authorities. In one part of the book, which was presented as a work of research for the general public, the applicant commented on what he regarded as the poor quality of previous works on the gardens in question. Mrs S., the author of one of the earlier works which was particularly targeted by the criticisms, filed a criminal complaint for defamation against the applicant. The applicant was given a suspended sentence of one month’s imprisonment and ordered to pay a token euro to the complainant, as well as the cost of publishing an extract from the judgment in two regional newspapers. The following passage from the book was found to be defamatory: “Confusion about the role attributed to art, in this case poetry, which is said to be a vector for explaining [original emphasis] reality, would justify attendance for an extended season at a primary [school] for the study of literature and aesthetics, with an obligation to read and analyse Aristotle, Horace and Goethe – not forgetting W. Benjamin and H. Broch if extra tuition is required.” The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by Mr Azevedo against his conviction, considering that freedom of expression was not more important than the complainant’s right to protect her honour and reputation. However, the court replaced the suspended prison sentence by a daily fine of 10   euros for 100 days, or 66 days’ imprisonment in the event of default. Law: The applicant’s criminal conviction constituted interference with his right to freedom of expression. That interference was prescribed by the Portuguese Criminal Code and had the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. As to whether that interference had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court considered that the controversy in issue – the historical and symbolic study of a significant local monument – was a matter of public interest. Bearing in mind that Mrs S. was the author of an academic work that had been published and was available on the market, she had laid herself open to potential criticism by readers or by other members of the academic community and could not be regarded as a “private individual”. Moreover, the Court found that the applicant’s comments, while admittedly having a negative connotation, sought mainly to question the assumed quality of the complainant’s analysis of the monument concerned. They were value judgments and, accordingly, were not susceptible of proof. Lastly, the imposition of a criminal penalty on the type of criticism made by the applicant would substantially restrict the freedom that researchers needed in the context of their scientific work. To allow for the possibility of a prison sentence in such a classic defamation case would inevitably have a disproportionate and chilling effect. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 2,947.65 in respect of pecuniary damage. Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficient.   © 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