European Court of Human Rights
5 July 2005
Facts
The applicant is an author whose works were criticised by a local newspaper in articles written by another author. The applicant sent a reply to the newspaper harshly criticising the person that had written the reviews. The newspaper rejected to publish his reply. The applicant then instituted proceedings claiming compensation for the material and moral damage caused by the publication of the articles. The courts rejected the applicant’s appeal because the articles had been written in the form of a book review in which the author expressed his personal opinion. Moreover, the newspaper's refusal to publish the applicant's objections had been justified because the applicant's reply had contained obscene and abusive remarks on the reviewer.
Complaint
The applicant complained that the newspaper's refusal to publish his reply raised an issue under Article 10 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court found that the applicant’s request was inadmissible and manifestly ill-founded. The Court explained that that there was a positive obligation on the State to protect the applicant’s right to freedom of expression in two ways:
- Firstly, by ensuring that the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right of reply by submitting a text to the newspaper for paper.
- Secondly, by giving the applicant an opportunity to challenge the newspaper’s refusal before the domestic courts.
The Court added that there is no unfettered right to have access to the media. Whilst as a general principle private media should be free to exercise editorial discretion in deciding whether to publish or not letters of private individuals, there could be exceptional circumstances in which a newspaper could legitimately be required to publish a retraction or apology.
In the present case, both positive obligations were fulfilled. The applicant was able to submit his reply to the newspaper, but he went beyond simply replying to the criticism by making obscene and abusive remarks about the critic. The applicant also had the opportunity of establishing his right of reply before the domestic courts.
The Court concluded that there had been no failure on the part of the authorities to comply with its positive obligation to protect the applicant's freedom of expression and the exercise of his right of reply.