European Court of Human Rights
11 April 2006
Facts
The applicant was a candidate to legislative elections in France. His main opponent was the mayor of Paris. He realised that his ballot papers were missing from the polling stations. The applicant lodged a complaint to the public prosecutor alleging that his ballot papers had been stolen. The public prosecutor decided not to pursue the complaint. The applicant then participated in several authorised public demonstrations in front of the town hall. He was convicted for public defamation of the mayor for having distributed leaflets calling for the invalidation of the mayor’s election.
Complaint
The applicant complained that he had been ordered to pay damages for defamation of a politician in an electoral context. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court found that the applicant’s conviction was an interference in his freedom of expression. It had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. Regarding its proportionality, the Court found that the statements in question concerned matters of public interest and constituted value judgments rather than pure statements of fact. Moreover, the Court emphasised that these statements were pronounced in the context of a political debate, and that restrictions to political speech can only be justified by compelling reasons, even more when it concerns a member of the opposition. Indeed, the Court explained that an opponent must be able to discuss the regularity of an election in order to find a place in the political arena, and that in the context of an electoral competition virulent discourse is more tolerable than in other circumstances. The Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been disproportionate and violated Article 10.