CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 février 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. 94 February 2007 SStandard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 2) - 37464/02 Judgment 22.2.2007 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Injunction restraining a newspaper from printing defamatory material purportedly based on an expert opinion when it was in fact based on a press release by political opponents: no violation   Facts : The applicant company was the owner of a newspaper which in 1999 carried a front-page article   alleging that a regional governor had deliberately misled the regional government and broken the law and rules of procedure governing the election of the supervisory board of a regional electricity company. The governor successfully instituted defamation proceedings in the criminal and civil courts. In the criminal proceedings he obtained orders for the offending statements to be expunged from undistributed copies of the newspaper and for the publication of the judgment and in the civil proceedings an order requiring the newspaper to retract the allegations. The applicant company’s appeals against these orders, in which it argued inter alia that the statements were value judgments based on an expert opinion by a professor of law and on press releases issued by a rival political party, were dismissed. Law : The case turned on the necessity of the interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression. Article   10 did not guarantee wholly unrestricted freedom of expression even with respect to press coverage of matters of serious public concern since, by reason of the “duties and responsibilities” inherent in the exercise of freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article   10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest was subject to the proviso that they were acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. Special grounds were required before the media could be dispensed from their ordinary obligation to verify factual statements that were defamatory of private individuals. The article   published by the newspaper dealt with a subject of considerable public and political interest, namely the conduct of a leading politician in the context of the re-appointment of the supervisory board of a partly public-owned institution. Accordingly, the argument that the article   was one-sided and partial did in itself justify restrictions on the applicant company’s freedom of expression. However, the article   repeatedly stated that the governor had deliberately misled the regional government and ignored the rules, when the expert opinion on which it was allegedly based did not contain any such allegation. The allegations were thus defamatory as they amounted to false statements of fact. Nor, on the facts, was it reasonable for the applicant company to have relied on a press release prepared by the governor’s political opponents. It was true that the press was normally entitled, when contributing to public debate on matters of legitimate concern, to rely on the contents of official reports without having to undertake independent research. However, the Court had serious doubts whether the statements of political opponents were comparable. Furthermore, the article   purported to be quoting directly from the expert opinion and made no reference to the allegedly incorrect source, namely the press release. The applicant company should therefore have consulted the opinion itself instead of relying, without further research, on the press release. Having regard to these circumstances, the domestic courts’ reasoning was “relevant and sufficient”. Moreover, since no penalties were imposed on the applicant company and it was not prevented from discussing the topic in any other way, the interference was also proportionate and “necessary in a democratic society” for the protection of the reputation and rights of others. Conclusion : no violation (four votes to three).   © 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