CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 juin 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 19 June 2000 Feldek v. Slovakia (dec.) - 29032/95 Decision 15.6.2000 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Order by court to publish statement admitting defamatory character of allegations against Minister: admissible A newspaper published a poem composed by the applicant in which, according to journalists, he implicitly made reference to the Minister for Culture and Education, D.S., and portrayed him as a fascist. Several newspapers later published a statement in which the applicant overtly accused D.S. of having a fascist background. D.S. sued the applicant for defamation and on appeal obtained an order that a declaration be published at the applicant’s expense in several newspapers, in which the latter would admit that the allegations made in his statement and transpiring from his poem represented “gross slander”. The applicant, who was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and the other party’s legal expenses, lodged a cassation appeal. The Court of Cassation upheld the appeal decision insofar as it entitled D.S. to the publication of the aforementioned declaration but quashed it as regards the poem, the non-pecuniary damages and the costs of the proceedings. The first instance court to which the case was referred back decided in favour of the applicant and D.S.’s following appeal was turned down. Admissible under Articles 9, 10 and 14.   © 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