CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 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 Grüner Klub im Rathaus v. Austria (dec.) - 13521/04 Decision 1.2.2007 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Defamation conviction for public allegations suggesting abuse of power by the Minister of Justice: inadmissible   The applicant represents the Austrian Green party in the Vienna Regional Parliament. The applicant issued a press release disseminating the statements of one of its members concerning the acquittal of two persons involved in the “police information scandal”. According to this politician, the judgment issued in this affair quite clearly bore the hallmark of the Minister of Justice. Upon the latter’s complaint, the regional court found that the impugned statement had amounted to defamation and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister EUR 3,   000 in compensation. The domestic courts qualified it as a statement of fact which suggested that the Minister had illegally abused his powers and influenced the deciding judge. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully, submitting that the statement should have been qualified as a value judgment, for which there had been some factual basis, namely the Minister’s conduct at the very beginning of the investigations. Inadmissible : The interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been prescribed by law and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights and reputation of others. The “police information scandal”, which had involved some politicians, had certainly been an issue of public and political interest. Like the domestic authorities, the Court considered that the expression at issue had undoubtedly suggested the Minister’s interference with the judicial proceedings and that such a serious accusation had not been supported by any facts. The applicant’s arguments concerning the preliminary criminal investigations in the “police-information affair” had not been relevant for the justification of the impugned statement which had concerned the subsequent judicial proceedings. Even if the impugned statement was to be considered as a value judgment, as was the applicant’s proposition, it could not be considered as fair comment, as it lacked a sufficient factual basis. In finding that the interest in protecting the Minister’s reputation outweighed the applicant’s freedom of expression, the Austrian courts’ decisions had been based on reasons which could reasonably be regarded as relevant and sufficient. Therefore, the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had not been disproportionate: manifestly ill‑founded .   © 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