Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 116
February 2009
Brunet-Lecomte and Others v. France - 42117/04
Judgment 5.2.2009 [Section V]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Conviction for defamation arising out of particularly virulent remarks and serious allegations of criminal conduct that had not been proved beforehand in a criminal court: no violation
Facts: The first applicant was the publication director of a magazine and the third was the company which published it. The magazine featured an interview with the second applicant, the former manager of a branch of a bank, in which he reported large-scale money laundering and black-market money from tax evasion and criminal activities in reference to the bank concerned. The bank’s branch office brought proceedings against the first and second applicants for public defamation of a private person, submitting that the interview and the commentary introducing it were defamatory and infringed the presumption of its innocence. The applicants argued that the interview was in the public interest. The tribunal de grande instance held that the second applicant’s statements were defamatory and emphasised their virulent nature and the serious implications they entailed for all or part of the bank’s management, while also noting the context of the dispute between the bank and the second applicant since his dismissal. The court further noted that the first applicant had not verified the second applicant’s accusations. Ruling on the civil claim, it ordered the applicants to pay 1 euro in damages. The first two applicants appealed unsuccessfully. The Court of Appeal upheld the award of damages and observed that the applicants had acted in bad faith, displaying a lack of caution and moderation. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law.
Law: The ruling against the applicants was an interference with their right to freedom of expression which was prescribed by law. It pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, in this case the bank. The first applicant had been held liable for publishing an interview which, according to the domestic courts, contained defamatory accusations against the bank, together with comments that lacked moderation. The second applicant had been held liable for making the offending statements. The third applicant, the publishing company, had been held civilly liable for the sums awarded against the first applicant. The second applicant’s status as a former branch manager of the bank had conferred credibility on his statements in the eyes of the reader. However, the statements concerned acts punishable under criminal law, although no such conduct had been established by the criminal courts. They had been particularly virulent, unambiguous and unmitigated, clearly affirming that after the second applicant’s departure the bank had laundered money on a large scale. As to the first applicant, the domestic courts had found that as a professional journalist he had published an interview containing particularly virulent comments and serious accusations, without qualifying them or reminding the reader that no criminal convictions had been pronounced against the bank or its management. Instead, in his introductory comments, he had tried to lend credit to the second applicant’s allegations. The first applicant had therefore not simply published statements made by a third party, but had added virulent comments that undeniably went beyond a certain degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. Furthermore, the managers of the bank concerned had not been contacted prior to the publication of the interview. According to the domestic courts the fact that the first applicant had not taken the trouble to seek a second opinion was proof of his bad faith. In accordance with the ethics of their profession, however, journalists are expected to act in good faith. In this case, like the domestic courts, the Court found that the lack of moderation and caution in the statements reported by the first applicant had made it impossible to consider that he had acted in good faith. The civil action had culminated in the three applicants being ordered to pay nominal damages of one euro. Taking into consideration the content of the statements published without reservation and held to be defamatory, their potential public impact and the nominal amount awarded in damages, the Court concluded that the French authorities’ interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been proportionate to the aim pursued and necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: no-violation (unanimously).
© 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