CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 septembre 2013

.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. 166 August-September 2013 Belpietro v. Italy - 43612/10 Judgment 24.9.2013 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Imposition of suspended sentence on newspaper chief for publishing defamatory article: violation   Facts – At the relevant time the applicant was the director of the daily newspaper Il Giornale . In 2004 the newspaper published an article written by a senator criticising a number of members of the national legal service. Two public prosecutors, taking the view that the article infringed their honour, lodged a complaint for defamation against the senator and the applicant. The applicant was ordered to pay damages amounting to EUR   110,000 and was given a suspended sentence of four months’ imprisonment. Law – Article   10: The applicant’s conviction had constituted interference with his right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and was capable of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or the rights of the two prosecutors. The senator’s article had concerned a subject of general interest, namely the relationship between the prosecuting authorities and the carabinieri in Palermo in the sensitive sphere of anti-Mafia activities. As to the content of the impugned article, it had contained serious accusations against State civil servants which had not been backed up by objective evidence. In this respect the present case bore similarities to the case of Perna*. However, the latter had concerned the conviction of the article’s author, whereas the present case dealt with the conviction of the director of the newspaper which had published the article, for having omitted to exercise the necessary supervision in order to prevent the commission of offences through the medium of the press. The fact that the author of the article had been a senator did not exempt the applicant from his duty of supervision, particularly since the senator had already been finally convicted of defamation on previous occasions. It also had to be borne in mind that the director of the newspaper was responsible for the manner in which an article was presented and for the prominence given to it within the publication. In the instant case, the graphic manner of presentation had served to reinforce in readers’ minds the arguments set out in the article, including those which could be seen as an attack on the prosecutors’ professional standing. Accordingly, the applicant’s conviction had not in itself been contrary to Article   10 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the nature and severity of the penalties imposed also had to be taken into consideration in assessing the proportionality of the interference. In the present case the applicant, in addition to being ordered to pay damages, had been sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. Although that sentence had been suspended, the fact that a prison sentence had been imposed was liable to have a significant dissuasive effect. Furthermore, there were no exceptional circumstances capable of justifying such a heavy penalty in the present case, which concerned a lack of supervision in connection with defamation. In the Perna case the penalty imposed had been merely a fine. Consequently, the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had not been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article   41: EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. * Perna v.   Italy [GC], 48898/99, 6   May 2003, Information Note   53   © 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