Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 130
May 2010
Brunet Lecomte and Lyon Mag’ v. France - 17265/05
Judgment 6.5.2010 [Section V]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Conviction for publication of allegations insinuating that a Muslim professor had taken part in terrorist activities: violation
Facts – The applicants are the publication director and publisher of the news magazine Lyon Mag’. The October 2001 issue was entitled “Exclusive, SOFRES poll, Local Muslims and terrorism. Report: Should we be afraid of Lyons’ Islamist networks?”. Filling three-quarters of the magazine’s cover page was a photograph of T. with the caption “T., one of the most influential Muslim leaders in Lyons”. There was also an article about him (“The Ambiguous Mr T.”). On a complaint by T., the criminal court found the publication defamatory but acquitted the applicants and dismissed T.’s civil suit on account of their good faith. The court of appeal set aside that judgment in 2003, finding that there had been public defamation of an individual. It ordered the first applicant to pay damages to T. and found the publishing company civilly liable. In 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants.
Law – Article 10: The judgment against the applicants for defamation had constituted interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression. That interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. The court of appeal had analysed the offending text but had not found the applicants’ offers of proof to be pertinent. It had also rejected their defence of good faith. The Court took the view, however, that the offending passages and insinuations should have been examined in their context, namely the publication of a series of articles resulting from a three-week investigation into local Islamist networks. Moreover, T., as a lecturer and without being compared to a public figure, had exposed himself to press criticism by the publicity that he had given to some of his ideas or beliefs, and could therefore have expected a close examination of his statements. The numerous documents contained in the offer of proof and produced before the Court clearly showed the danger posed by his statements. In addition, the article had mainly concerned the ban on entry to France that had been imposed on him and his brother a few years earlier, based on duly cited information from the French intelligence service. The offending remarks were not therefore devoid of factual basis. Furthermore, in view of the quantity and seriousness of the sources consulted, the investigation carried out and the moderation and prudence shown in the article, the applicants had been acting in good faith. The offending remarks, published by a well-informed press medium, had not exceeded the admissible limits of criticism in such matters. Moreover, the authorities had only had limited discretion to assess the necessity of the penalty imposed. The offending articles, published shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks, had contributed to a political debate of immediate interest, resituating it in the local context. Therefore, the applicants’ interest in imparting and the public’s interest in receiving information about a subject in the general interest, and its repercussions for the Lyons area as a whole, had prevailed over T.’s right to the protection of his reputation. Thus, the reasons put forward by the domestic courts in order to justify the judgment against the applicants had not been relevant or sufficient. Lastly, an amnesty in 2002 had terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicants. Only the civil proceedings had remained open, resulting in an award of EUR 2,500 in damages against both applicants jointly. In view of the acts for which they had been held liable, such a penalty had been disproportionate. The interference in the exercise by the applicants of their right to freedom of expression had not therefore been necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: violation (five votes to two).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy