Information Note on the Court’s case-law 56
September 2003
Chauvy and Others v. France (dec.) - 64915/01
Decision 23.9.2003 [Section II]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Conviction for defamation of members of a recognised movement of the Resistance: admissible
Article 7
Article 7-1
Nullum crimen sine lege
Conviction allegedly based on an extensive interpretation of the legislation concerning defamation of a State official via the press: inadmissible
The first applicant is the author of a book entitled “AUBRAC-Lyon 1943”, published in 1997 by Éditions Albin Michel (the third applicant), whose chairman is the second applicant. The work deals with certain historic events of the second world war concerning the French Resistance. It covers in particular one of the principal grey areas of that period, namely the meeting in Caluire, which is of particular significance to the history of the French Resistance. On 21 June 1943, Klaus Barbie, the regional Head of the Gestapo, arrested the main leaders of the Resistance, who were attending a meeting on the outskirts of Lyons in Caluire. Among those arrested on that occasion was, in particular, the Resistance fighter Raymond Aubrac, who managed to escape in the autumn of 1943. The author of the work sets out to challenge what he calls the official truth of that major episode in the history of the second world war, reported in particular by Mr and Mrs Aubrac in the media. From that aspect, the book contains, in an appendix, a statement signed by Klaus Barbie, said to be the “Testament Barbie”, and the writer derives a large number of questions from a comparison of that document with the account of the historic events given by Mr and Mrs Aubrac. Mr and Mrs Aubrac brought an action for defamation against the applicants. Relying on the Law of 29 July 1881 on the press and Law no. 51-19 of 5 January 1951, the court held that the first two applicants were guilty, as principal and accessory respectively, of the offence of public defamation of Mr and Mrs Aubrac in their capacity as members of a “recognised Resistance movement”. The Court imposed fines on the first and second applicant. It also ordered them jointly, as between themselves and with the third applicant, to pay damages. The applicants appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, after holding in particular that the first applicant’s entire exercise was intended to convince the reader that Mr and Mrs Aubrac had committed treason. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal on a point of law.
Admissible under Article 10.
Inadmissible under Article 7: The national courts applied a Law of 1881 and a Law of 1951 which form the basis of a long-established and consistent body of case-law. The publisher and the publishing house, being in the business of publishing works, should have been aware of that situation, if necessary with the advice of specialist lawyers. They were thus in a position to evaluate the risk of legal action should a work of such a kind be published in that form. Furthermore, the applicants were legally represented before the domestic courts and had the benefit of inter partes hearings before three levels of jurisdiction. Last, the decisions delivered, which were fully reasoned, do not exceed the limits of a reasonable interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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