European Court of Human Rights
30 March 2004
Facts
The applicants, a journalist and editorial director, were convicted of defamation for broadcasting on the radio over a 24-hour period a number of news bulletins attributing to J., a former public official, an active and personal role in the deportation of a thousand jews in 1942. The national court ruled that these accusations, which were false, amounted to defamation. The journalist and editorial director were ordered to pay a fine in damages. An order was also made requiring the company to broadcast an announcement informing the public of the conviction.
Complaint
The applicants complained of an infringement of their right to freedom of expression as a result of the penalties and measures imposed on them by domestic courts. The applicants complained that the order requiring them to broadcast an announcement about the conviction had not been prescribed by law.
Court’s ruling
The Court found that the applicants suffered interferences with their freedom of expression due to their convictions. Regarding the question on whether the interferences had been prescribed by law, the Court disagreed with the applicants and ruled that both the criminal penalty and the order requiring the applicant to make civil reparation by broadcasting an announcement relating to the conviction had been prescribed by law. Indeed, this order had a basis in domestic law and was foreseeable. These interferences also pursued a legitimate aim, namely protecting the reputation or rights of others.
Regarding the proportionality of the interferences, the Court found that the journalist had broadcast incorrect information and had been unable to prove that he had exercised the highest caution and particular moderation, which were required both by the extreme gravity of the acts imputed to J. and by repetition of the bulletin on a radio station which could be heard throughout French territory. The grounds for the French courts’ finding that J.’s honour and dignity had been impugned were therefore held to be “relevant and sufficient”. The penalties and measures of reparation imposed on the applicants had not been disproportionate in relation to the legitimate aim pursued and in view of the extreme gravity of the acts imputed. The Court concluded that the interference could be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” and found that there was no violation of Article 10.