CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 juillet 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     522   12.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF FELDEK v. SLOVAKIA     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case of Feldek v. Slovakia (application number 29032/95). The Court held:   by five votes to two, there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 9 (freedom of thought); unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 65,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) for non-pecuniary damage and SKK 500,000 for legal costs and expenses. (The judgment exists only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Lubomír Feldek is a Czech national. On 30 July 1992 several Slovakian newspapers published a statement which he had distributed to the Public Information Service, in which he made references to the “fascist past” of Dušan Slobodník, a Government Minister. The statement was published shortly after the appointment of a new Government, following the 1992 parliamentary elections, and after the adoption of the declaration of Slovakia’s sovereignty. Mr Slobodník had been appointed Minister for Culture and Education in June 1992.   On 9 September 1992 Mr Slobodník sued the applicant for defamation. On 18 October 1993 Bratislava City Court dismissed the action, but its judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court. On 25 May 1995 a different chamber of the Supreme Court siting as the court of cassation upheld the part of the Supreme Court’s decision which declared the statement at issue defamatory and entitled Mr Slobodník to have published in five newspapers of his choice a text asserting that the applicant’s statement represented “a gross slander and disparagement of (his) civil honour and life”. The remainder of the case was sent back to the city court.   On 15 April 1996 the city court dismissed the claim for non-pecuniary damage and ordered the applicant to pay costs totalling SKK 57,655. The Supreme Court overturned the first instance judgment as to the costs in that it held that neither party was entitled to have the costs reimbursed and that each of the parties pay half of the costs paid in advance, namely 1,750 SKK . Mr Slobodník’s appeal on points of law is still pending.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11 September 1995 and transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998. It was declared admissible on 15 June 2000.   Judgment was given   by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), judges ,   and Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the Slovakian courts had violated his right to freedom of expression in granting Mr Slobodník’s action and that the publication of a text declaring his statement defamatory violated his right to freedom of thought. He also complained that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his political opinion. He relied on Articles 10, 9 and 14.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court found that it was clear and undisputed that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression in that the relevant judicial decisions declared his statement defamatory and ordered him to endure the publication of this conclusion in five newspapers. The interference complained of also had a legal basis, namely Articles   11 and 13 (1) of the Civil Code, and was, therefore, prescribed by law within the meaning of Article 10 § 2. The Court further found that the grounds relied on by the Slovak courts were consistent with the aim of protecting the personal rights of the plaintiff.   Deciding whether the measures were “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court noted that the applicant’s statement was made and published as part of a political debate on matters of general and public concern relating to the history of Slovakia, which might have repercussions concerning its future democratic development. Moreover, although the statement did not indicate the sources, it was based on facts, which had been published both by Mr Slobodník himself and the press prior to the publication of the applicant’s statement.   The Court emphasised that the promotion of free political debate was a very important feature in a democratic society. It attached the highest importance to the freedom of expression in the context of political debate and considered that very strong reasons were required to justify restrictions on political speech.   The Court found that the applicant’s statement was a value judgment, the truthfulness of which was not susceptible of proof. It was made in the context of a free debate on an issue of general interest, concerning a public figure, in respect of whom the limits of acceptable criticism were wider than for a private individual. The Court was satisfied that the value judgment made by the applicant was based on information which was already known to the wider public.   The court of cassation did not convincingly establish any pressing social need for putting the protection of the personal rights of a public figure above the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the general interest of promoting this freedom where issues of public interest were concerned. In particular, it did not appear from the domestic courts’ decisions that the applicant’s statement had affected Mr   Slobodník’s political career or his professional and private life. The national authorities therefore failed to strike a fair balance between the relevant interests.   Accordingly, the interference complained of was not “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 and there had therefore been a violation of Article 10.   Articles 9 and 14   The Court found that no separate issue arose under Article 9.   The Court found no indication that the measure complained of could be attributed to a difference in treatment based on the applicant’s political opinion or any other relevant ground.   Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article   14.     Judges Fischbach and Lorenzen expressed a dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91 The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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 the case to the Grand Chamber. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.