CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 décembre 2010

.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. 136 December 2010 Poyraz v. Turkey - 15966/06 Judgment 7.12.2010 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Award of damages against public servant for comments made to press concerning confidential report on conduct of Court of Cassation judge: no violation   Facts – The applicant, chief inspector of the Ministry of Justice, was responsible for conducting an inquiry into alleged professional misconduct on the part of a judge. In the report he co-authored, the professional conduct of the judge – who had in the meantime been appointed to the Court of Cassation – was severely criticised through witness accounts of, inter alia , acts of sexual harassment. The report was leaked to the press and received widespread television coverage, featuring interviews with the applicant, the judge and witnesses. In response to accusations that he was involved in a political conspiracy against the judge, the applicant issued a written statement to the press in which he asserted that the judge was currently the subject of fifteen separate inquiries and that he had not named the harassment victims in order to prevent deaths from occurring. The judge brought an action for damages against the applicant in the latter’s personal capacity. The applicant was ordered to pay damages and was unsuccessful in his appeal to the Court of Cassation. Law – Article 10: The authorities’ interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in the form of the civil judgment against him on the basis of his report and his comments to the press, had been prescribed by domestic law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. Judgment had been given against the applicant in his personal and not his professional capacity, but both protagonists in the case nevertheless had a duty of loyalty towards the State and a reputation to preserve as high-ranking representatives of the legal service. The applicant’s statements to the press, despite being generally neutral in tone, had amounted to acquiescence in the content of the information disclosed. Furthermore, the applicant had made his own subjective comment on top of that information, namely that deaths might occur if he disclosed the names of the harassment victims. He had also “defended” the content of the report when interviewed by the audiovisual media. It could therefore be concluded, in line with the domestic courts’ findings, that the applicant had, at least in part, endorsed the content of the report as published in the press. As a result, he had not displayed the discretion required of a judicial authority. Moreover, the report mentioned serious offences allegedly committed by a member of the Court of Cassation, who needed to enjoy public confidence in order to be able to discharge his functions. People entrusted with public duties had to exercise restraint to avoid creating situations of inequality when making public statements concerning ordinary citizens, whose access to the media was more limited. They also had to be especially vigilant when in charge of investigations involving information covered by an official secrecy clause designed to ensure the proper administration of justice. Accordingly, the authorities’ interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been necessary in a democratic society and the means employed had been proportionate to the aim pursued, namely the protection of the reputation or rights of others. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the excessive length (seven years and seven months) of the civil proceedings in the case.   © 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