CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 février 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   110 14.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria (application no.   36207/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and, no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Rumyana Dencheva Ivanova, is a Bulgarian national who lives in Sofia. She is a reporter for 24   Hours , one of Bulgaria’s leading daily newspapers.   The case concerned Ms Ivanova’s complaint about her conviction for defamation of Mr M.D., a well-known politician and Member of Parliament.   Following a serious banking crisis in the late 1990s, an act was introduced in 1997 to reform Bulgarian banking legislation, in particular as concerned non-performing and unsecured loans. The act stipulated that the Bulgarian National Bank should compile a list, to be published in a special bulletin, of all those clients with loans which had been overdue for more than six months. That list was presented to the National Assembly on 21 January 1998. The clients on the list were popularly referred to as “credit millionaires”.   On 4 August 2001 24   Hours published an article written by Ms Ivanova which stated that Mr   M.D. was on the national bank’s official list of 21 January 1998 on account of his ownership of three companies: Maxcom Holding, FBK Maxcom and Maxcom OOD. The article suggested that Mr M.D. – a candidate at that time for the post of Deputy Minister of Finance – being mentioned on the list was cause for concern for the Prime Minister. The 24 hours ’ editor, informed by Mr M.D. that he was not a shareholder of the three Maxcom companies, published a rectified version of the article later the same day. On 6 August 24   Hours also ran an additional article in which Mr M.D. denied any involvement with Maxcom or any other debtor company.   On 8 October 2001 Mr M. D. brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for libel, in breach of Articles 147 § 1 and 148 §§ 1 (2) and 2 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code. In her defence, the applicant claimed that she had simply relayed information from Members of Parliament who had tipped her off about doubts concering Mr M.D.’s candidacy. She had verified that information by contacting the Customs Administration Press Office, who had referred her to the Full list of credit millionaires published on 22 January 1998 by Trud , another leading national newspaper. FBK Maxcom and Maxcom OOD were mentioned in the preface of that publication and, having checked an electronic law database, the applicant found that Mr M.D. had been a member of Vitaplant OOD, also on the debtor list.   On 16 September 2002 Sofia District Court found the applicant guilty of slander and ordered her to pay an administrative fine of 500 new Bulgarian levs   (BGN) (approximately 256   euros   (EUR)), compensation and costs. That judgment was upheld on appeal on 19 May 2003. In those two decisions, the courts held that the applicant was only able to prove that Mr M. D. was on the official bad debtors’ list through his connection with the company Vitaplant OOD, not through the Maxcom companies cited in the article. Alleging that Mr M.D. was a “credit millionaire” because of his indirect involvement in one company was quite different to stating that he fully owned three companies on the bad debtors’ list. Those decisions also found, in general, that the applicant did not sufficiently verify her information prior to its publication and that, in her desire to publish news quickly and against best journalistic practice, she failed to consult trustworthy sources.   In the meantime, Mr M. D. withdrew his candidacy for the post of Deputy Minister of Finance.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14   November 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and Article 10, Ms Ivanova complained that the proceedings against her were unfair and that her ensuing conviction for defamation infringed her right to freedom of expression.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   The Court noted that the applicant’s complaint concerning Sofia District Court’s failure to establish whether Mr M.D. had indirectly been a member of Vitaplant OOD had been rectified on appeal and, in any event, that had not made her statement concerning Mr M.D.’s ownership of the Maxcom companies any the less defamatory.   Furthermore, the district court could not be criticised for failing to summon as a witness the Member of Parliament who had tipped off the applicant. The applicant had not identified that Member of Parliament and, according to the Court’s settled case-law, it was the national courts’ responsibility to assess whether it was appropriate to call a witness.   The decisions in the applicant’s case had not therefore been arbitrary and, reiterating that it was primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, the Court did not find that the proceedings against the applicant had been unfair. Accordingly, there had been no violation of 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).   Article 10   Both parties agreed that the applicant’s conviction for defamation had amounted to an interference with her right to freedom of expression. That interference, based on Articles 147 and 148 of the Criminal Code, had been “prescribed by law”. The Court therefore went on to examine whether that interference had been “necessary in a democratic society” and corresponded to a “pressing social need”.   The Court reiterated the vital role of the press as “public watchdog” and its duty in a democratic society to provide information on all matters of public interest. The article at issue had reported on a question of considerable public interest: the candidacy of a well known politician for the post of Deputy Minister of Finance. Furthermore, as a politician and candidate for public office, Mr M. D. had inevitably and knowingly laid himself open to public scrutiny, in particular as regards his financial integrity.   However, Article 10 did not guarantee totally unrestricted freedom of expression. The exercise of that freedom carried with it “duties and responsibilities”, particularly when someone’s reputation was at stake. When applied to the press, those duties and responsibilities involved acting in good faith to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.   The statement in the applicant’s article about Mr M. D. having been mentioned on an official debtors’ list on account of his ownership of three specifically named companies had clearly been an allegation of fact and, as such, susceptible to proof. Indeed, the more serious the allegation, as in the case in question, the more solid the proof had to be, especially as those allegations had been published in a popular national daily newspaper with a wide circulation.   The Court saw no reason to question the findings of the domestic courts that the applicant had not provided sufficient proof that her statement was not defamatory and, in fact, that she had published facts which she had known or ought to have known to be dubious. Moreover, the applicant had phrased her statement in such a way as to leave no doubt that it had been her allegation, not that of the Members of Parliament who had tipped her off. The statement had also implied that the information had been directly based on the official list, not on any other publications, such as in Trud . The applicant had adopted the allegations as her own and had therefore been liable for their truthfulness.   There had been no special grounds to exempt the applicant from her obligation to verify her statements. Clearly Trud ’s publication, not an official report, and informal statements made by two Members of Parliament in a National Assembly lobby could not be relied upon unreservedly.   Although the article had been amended and then a response by Mr M.D. published, the article’s original version had by that time been widely read and the damage to his reputation already done.   The Court was therefore satisfied that the reasons given by the Bulgarian courts for convicting the applicant had been relevant and sufficient and that the manner in which the case had been examined had shown full recognition of a conflict between, on the one hand, the right to impart information and, on the other, protection of the reputation or rights of others.   In view of the reasons given by the Bulgarian courts for convicting the applicant and of the relative lenience of her punishment, criminal liability having been waived in favour of the minimum administrative fine, the Court concluded that there had therefore been no violation of Article 10.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.