CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 novembre 2007

.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. 102 November 2007 Pfeifer v. Austria - 12556/03 Judgment 15.11.2007 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Failure by the domestic courts to protect the applicant's reputation in defamation proceedings following the publication of a letter accusing him of acts tantamount to a criminal offence: violation   Facts : The applicant published a commentary that was strongly critical of a professor who had written an article alleging that the Jews had declared war on Germany in 1933 and trivialising the crimes of the Nazi regime. Some five years later, the professor was prosecuted under the National Socialism Prohibition Act on account of the article. He committed suicide shortly before his trial. Subsequently, the chief editor of a right-wing magazine, Zur Zeit , addressed a letter to subscribers asking for financial support and claiming that a group of anti-fascists was trying to damage it by means of disinformation in the media and by instituting criminal proceedings and civil actions. The letter repeated an allegation the magazine had already made in an earlier article that the applicant was a member of a “hunting association” that had driven the professor to his death. The domestic courts acquitted the chief editor of defamation charges on the grounds that the letter contained a value judgment which had a sufficient factual basis. Law : The complaint was that the State had failed to protect the applicant's reputation from interference by third parties. Article 8 was applicable as, even in the context of a public debate, a person's reputation formed part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity and so fell within the scope of his or her “private life”. The domestic courts had considered the impugned statement to be a value judgement with a sufficient factual basis to avoid being defamatory. The Court was not convinced by that assessment, as the statement clearly established a causal link between the applicant's actions and the professor's suicide. Such a link was not a matter of speculation, but a fact susceptible of proof and no evidence of its existence had been offered. Further, while it was true that even statements that shocked or offended were protected by the right to freedom of expression, the statement here had overstepped acceptable limits by accusing the applicant of acts tantamount to criminal behaviour in that it was alleged that he had ultimately driven the professor to suicide. Further, even if the statement were to be understood as a value judgment, it lacked a sufficient factual basis. The use of the expression “a member of a hunting association” implied that the applicant had been acting in cooperation with others with the aim of persecuting and attacking the professor. There was no indication, however, that the applicant, who had merely written one article at the very beginning of a series of events, had acted in such a manner or with such an intention and his article had not transgressed the limits of acceptable criticism. The Court was therefore not convinced that the reasons advanced by the domestic courts for protecting freedom of expression outweighed the applicant's right to protection of his reputation. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 41 – EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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