[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Riolo v Italy - 42211/07 [2010] ECHR 979 (3 June 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/979.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 979

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)55¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Riolo against Italy

(Application No. 42211/07, judgment of 17 July 2008, final on 17 October 2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns disproportionate interference in the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, a university researcher found guilty of defamation (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)55

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Riolo against Italy

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, a university researcher, who in 2003 was found guilty of defamation following the publication of an article in a journal (violation of Article 10). The national courts considered the article defamatory because it contained certain expressions which went beyond the limits of legitimate criticism and drew unverifiable conclusions prejudicial to the reputation of a politician. It was suggested that the politician might have committed offences or that he had protected mafia interests.

The European Court found that the factual nature of the main information presented was not in question. Although the article at issue was provocative, it was far from being a gratuitous attack on the politician in question. Moreover, in calling into question the relations which may exist between the political sphere and vested interests, the applicant was dealing with a matter of general interest and a legitimate subject for public debate. This being the case, the Court considered that the sentence imposed on the applicant, i.e. a fine, costs and damages, was disproportionate in relation the protection of the reputation and rights of others in a democratic society.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The European Court held that the finding of the violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. However, it did award just satisfaction in respect of all counts of pecuniary damage sustained (covering moral damages, legal interest, compensation and legal expenses paid by the applicant to the other party in the framework of the national proceedings). In these circumstances, no other individual measure seems necessary.

II. General measures

The government considers that, given the direct applicability of the provisions of the European Convention in Italy, publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all competent courts appear sufficient to avoid similar violations. The Ministry of Justice is in charge of the translation of all the European Court’s judgments and their dissemination to competent courts, to the Prosecutor General and to the Secretariat General of the Court of Cassation. In this context it should be noted that a summary of the judgment has been published in Italian in the database on the European Court of Human Rights of the Court of Cassation (www.italgiure.giustizia.it), together with the text of the judgment in the original language (French). This website is widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.