CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 novembre 2006

.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. 91 November 2006 Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium - 64772/01 Judgment 9.11.2006 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Issue of magazine withdrawn from sale and its further distribution prohibited as it had disclosed documents classified as secret in the context of a parliamentary inquiry: no violation   Facts : The House of Representatives set up a parliamentary commission of inquiry to examine the handling by the police and the judiciary of an abduction case. Ms. D., an investigating judge, gave evidence to the commission, which asked her to hand over some notes about the investigation that she had brought with her. The file was made available to the members of the commission of inquiry, on the condition that they would not take it away or make copies of it. However, the weekly magazine Ciné Télé Revue published an article containing lengthy extracts from the preparatory file that the judge had handed over to the commission of inquiry. On the same day, on an application by Judge D., the urgent-applications judge of the Court of First Instance ordered the editor to take all necessary steps to remove every copy of the magazine from sales outlets within three hours after notification of the decision, on pain of a fine, and prohibited him from subsequently distributing any copy featuring the same cover and article. The urgent-applications judge, on an appeal by the editor and the publishing company (the applicants), upheld the order and extended it to the company itself, holding that the documents that had been published were subject to the rules on confidentiality of parliamentary inquiries and that their publication appeared to have breached the rights of the defence and interfered with the judge’s right to respect for her private life. The Court of Appeal upheld the order, but in respect of the editor alone. In addition, the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law. Lastly, Judge D., having obtained a bailiff’s report to the effect that copies of the magazine were to be found in a number of bookshops, secured an attachment against a bank account of the publishing company. The Court of First Instance, finding that there was no evidence of actual sale or of failure to inform newsagents of the magazine’s withdrawal, ordered the discharge of the attachment measure and the payment by Judge D. of damages to the applicant company. Law : The applicants’ conviction had constituted interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, that interference having been prescribed by law and pursuing the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. The withdrawal from circulation of the offending magazine had been justified and necessary in a democratic society because of the interference with Judge D.’s defence rights and with her right to respect for her private life, but also because the published documents had been protected by the confidentiality of the parliamentary inquiry. It had not been unreasonable or arbitrary to consider that Judge   D.’s defence rights might be affected, having regard, in particular, to the far-reaching powers of the commission of inquiry and to the possible repercussions for the position of the person appearing before it as a result of his or her testimony. Moreover, the offending article had dealt with a widely discussed matter of public interest. However, the article could not be regarded as having served the public interest, since its content had partly been related to the judge’s preparation of her testimony and also because all the commission’s hearings had been broadcast live, such that the public at large had been fully informed. Lastly, as to interference with private life, the Court found that the article in question had contained criticism that was especially directed against the judge’s character. In particular, it had included a copy of correspondence which was private, in the strictest sense, and the use of the file handed over to the commission of inquiry together with the comments made in the article had revealed the very essence of her “system of defence”. In those circumstances, the article in question and its circulation could not be regarded as having contributed to any debate of general interest to society, and the grounds given by the Belgian courts to justify the applicants’ conviction were relevant and sufficient. The impugned interference had thus been proportionate to the aim pursued and necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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