CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 juillet 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 } .sCC0049A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.05pt; font-size:10pt } .s32335BFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.05pt } .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   513 8.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BACKES v. LUXEMBURG   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Backes v. Luxemburg (application no. 24261/05).   The Court held:   by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts The applicant, Ernest Backes, is a national of Luxembourg who was born in 1946 and lives in Bech-Kleinmacher (Luxembourg).   A former executive in the company Clearstream, the applicant is the co-author, with a journalist, of a book entitled Révélation$ . It was published in March 2001 in Luxembourg, France and Belgium. According to the applicant, the book caused an international stir because it disclosed wrongdoing in the international clearing system operated by the Clearstream group. The book pointed the finger at a number of well-known figures from the world of finance.   A footnote to one passage from the book, in which the applicant described the character of an Iraqi financier, contained four statements with regard to Mr N.S., a lawyer:   “[Mr N.S.] was known for his contacts with [M.S.] and [R.C.], former bankers for the Mafia and the Vatican respectively (cf. [F.C.] and [L.S.], op.cit. p. 288), and he was suspected of having forged ties with organised crime, particularly in the United States. He also maintained excellent personal relations with [G.A.], dating from the period when he was president of the European Association of Christian-Democrat Students. As Grand Master of the main Masonic Lodge in Luxembourg, he was responsible for admitting [R.C.] to its ranks.”   In April 2001 the applicant was cited before the Criminal Court by N.S. for calumny, libel or, at the least, proffering insults, through the publication of the statements in the footnote. He was acquitted with regard to three of these statements, and convicted only of the offence of proffering insults on the ground that he had written that “[N.S.] was suspected of having forged ties with organised crime, particularly in the United States”. He was ordered to pay a fine of 1,500   euros   (EUR) and the symbolic amount of one euro to the civil party in respect of damages. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the appellate court, then by the Court of Cassation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), András Sajó (Hungarian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 10, Mr Backes alleged that his conviction for proffering insults had violated his right to freedom of expression. Under Article 6 § 1, he further complained that inadequate reasons had been given in the decisions by the domestic courts with regard to his arguments under Article 10.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court considered that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. That interference was prescribed by the Luxembourg legislation and pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation of N.S. It remained to be determined whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court considered that the disputed passage, read in context, had to be read as a value judgment. It reiterated that even where a statement amounted to a value judgment, there had to exist a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it would be excessive.   The applicant indicated that he had based the disputed statement on a note about the “Iraqi financier”. However, the Court considered that that note, which was neither dated nor signed, gave rise to doubts in view of the divergent information provided by the applicant.   With regard to the other documents submitted to the domestic courts, the latter had concluded that none of the documents included in the case file provided any ground for establishing an actual basis for the action attributed to N.S. Like the domestic courts, the Court held that there was no sufficient factual basis entitling the applicant to write that “[N.S.] was suspected of having forged ties with organised crime, particularly in the United States”.   The statements made by the applicant concerned a subject of general interest, since Révélation$ addressed the area of “parallel finance”.   However, the Court considered that the applicant’s interest in disseminating the disputed statements did not outweigh N.S.’s undisputed right to protection of his honour and of his reputation as a lawyer. It considered that it was open to the applicant to contribute to a free public discussion of the problems described in the book Révélation$ , without claiming that N.S. was “suspected of having forged ties with organised crime, particularly in the United States”.   Consequently, the Court held that the grounds cited by the domestic courts in concluding that the applicant had damaged the reputation of N.S. and convicting him had been “relevant and sufficient”.   In conclusion, having regard to the modest nature of the sentence imposed and the content of the disputed statements, the Court considered that the measures taken against the applicant had not been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Accordingly, there had not been a violation of Article 10.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the domestic courts had not explicitly ruled on the applicant’s arguments under Article 10 of the Convention. Having examined the reasoning in the decisions by the domestic courts, the Court concluded that the applicant did not have grounds for alleging that insufficient reasons had been given for the decisions by the Luxembourg courts, even if, in the applicant’s case, more substantial reasoning with regard to Article 10 would have been desirable. Consequently, there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     Judge Mularoni expressed a concurring opinion, and Judges Zagrebelsky, Popović and Sajó expressed dissenting opinions, which are appended to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.