BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria (no. 2) - 3084/07 - CLIN [2012] ECHR 2044 (18 September 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/2044.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 2044 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 155
August-September 2012
Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria (no. 2) - 3084/07
Judgment 18.9.2012 See: [2012] ECHR 1707
[Section I]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Publication of untrue statements concerning alleged judicial bias: no violation
Facts - In May 2005 a certain H.P. was acquitted in criminal proceedings of the attempted rape of an asylum-seeker. The applicant company published an article which was highly critical of those proceedings, in particular on account of the manner in which evidence was taken and assessed and of alleged bias on the part of the presiding judge. The judge then brought an action in defamation against the applicant company on account of statements in the impugned article accusing her of ignoring relevant evidence, giving a “scandalous” judgment and having “unfinished business” with the alleged victim. In December 2005 a regional court found for the judge and ordered the applicant company to pay EUR 7,000 in compensation and to publish a summary of the judgment.
Law - Article 10: The issue discussed in the impugned article concerned a matter of public interest, but in addition to criticising H.P.’s trial also contained particularly harsh criticism of the presiding judge as having been biased. The statements in question must be considered as statements of fact, which the applicant company unsuccessfully sought to prove before the domestic courts. The seriousness of the allegation that the judge had purposely given too little weight to some evidence and too much weight to other evidence required a very solid factual basis, which the applicant company was unable to rely on. The applicant company was ultimately ordered to pay EUR 7,000, a reasonable amount taking into account the length and content of the impugned article. In sum, in awarding such compensation in respect of an article that was so damaging to the judge’s reputation, the State had acted within its margin of appreciation.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
