CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 septembre 2005

.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. 78 September 2005 Krone Verlags GmbH & Co. KG v. Austria (dec.) - 72331/01 Decision 22.9.2005 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Newspaper held jointly liable, together with a journalist it employed, who was convicted for defamation: admissible   Facts : The applicant company owns the daily newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung, which published an article about the alleged harassment and rape by a prince of two winners of beauty contests, Ms O. and Ms   S. The article quoted a Ms   R., who had told a journalist of the applicant company, that “the girls were only boasting and now try to make as much money as possible out of this unfortunate incident.” Ms   O. and Ms   S. filed a private prosecution for defamation against Ms   R. The Regional Court convicted Ms R. of defamation and imposed a fine on her, finding the applicant company jointly and severally liable for the fine and costs pursuant to Section 35 of the Media Act. After having paid the costs of the defamation proceedings to Ms O. and Ms S., the courts allowed the applicant company’s action and ordered Ms R. to pay the applicant company 50% of the costs of the defamation proceedings. In a final judgment, the Supreme Court stated that the applicant company had paid another person’s debt, and was in principle entitled to the full amount of the sum paid. However, the special internal relationship between the applicant company and Ms R., who was an employee, stood against full reimbursement. The applicant company complains about its joint and strict liability under Section 35 of the Media Act regardless of its compliance with journalistic diligence. Admissible under Article 10.   © 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