CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 juillet 2011

.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. 143 July 2011 Uj v. Hungary - 23954/10 Judgment 19.7.2011 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Conviction for defamation in respect of newspaper article criticising wine produced by State-owned company: violation   Facts – The applicant, a journalist, was convicted of defamation and sentenced to a reprimand in respect of a newspaper article in which he had criticised the quality of a well-known variety of Hungarian wine produced by a State-owned company. The domestic courts found that although the applicant was entitled to express his opinion about the wine, characterising it as “shit” was unduly insulting and infringed the wine producer’s right to a good reputation. Law – Article 10: The sole issue before the Court was whether the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society. The Court accepted that the wine company had without question the right to defend itself against defamatory allegations and that there was a general interest in protecting the commercial success and viability of companies, not only for the benefit of shareholders and employees, but also for the wider economic good. However, there was a difference between damaging an individual’s reputation concerning his or her social status, with the repercussions that that could have on his or her dignity, and a company’s commercial reputation, which had no moral dimension. While the term used by the applicant was offensive, the article had expressed a value judgment or opinion whose primary aim was to raise awareness about the disadvantages of State ownership rather than to denigrate the quality of the company’s products. Raising as it did the question of government policies on the protection of national values and the role of private enterprise and foreign investment, it concerned a matter of public interest in respect of which the press had a duty to impart information and ideas, even if exaggerated or provocative. Since the domestic courts had failed to have regard to these considerations, the respondent State could not establish that the restriction had been proportionate. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: No claim made in respect of 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