Egill Einarsson v. Iceland (no. 2)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 220

July 2018

Egill Einarsson v. Iceland (no. 2) - 31221/15

Judgment 17.7.2018 [Section II]

Article 8

Positive obligations

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Courts’ refusal to award legal costs and compensation for defamatory statements declared null and void: no violation

Facts – The applicant, a well-known person in Iceland, was accused by two women of rape and sexual assault. Shortly after the dismissal of the cases, he gave an interview (see Egill Einarsson v. Iceland, 24703/15, 7 November 2017, Information Note 212). Following its publication, a Facebook page was created to protest about it and a third party (X) made the following statements on the page: “This is also not an attack on a man for saying something wrong, but for raping a teenage girl ... It is permissible to criticise the fact that rapists appear on the cover of publications which are distributed all over town ...” The statements were removed seven days later, at the request of the applicant’s lawyer.

The applicant subsequently instituted defamation proceedings against X. The domestic courts, finding the statements defamatory, declared them null and void. However, it was held that the applicant had received “full judicial satisfaction” and he was thus not awarded non-pecuniary damage. The courts furthermore rejected the claim to have X bear the cost of publishing the findings of the judgment in a newspaper and concluded that each party should bear its own legal costs.

Law – Article 8: The issue to be determined in the present case was whether declaring the impugned statements null and void was sufficient, or whether only an award of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs could afford the necessary protection of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention.

The decision not to grant compensation did not in itself amount to a violation of Article 8. However, it was necessary to examine whether the national courts had analysed the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature and gravity of the violation as well as the conduct of the applicant.

In reaching their conclusion, the domestic courts had taken into account the applicant’s previous behaviour, the public reputation he had made for himself, the substance of the material that had stemmed from him, which was often ambiguous and provocative and could be interpreted as an incitement to sexual violence, the distribution of the comment on a Facebook page amongst hundreds or thousands of other comments, and the fact that the statements had been removed by X as soon as the applicant had so requested.

On that basis, it could not be held that the protection afforded to the applicant by the Icelandic courts, finding that he had been defamed and declaring the statements null and void, had not been effective or sufficient with regard to the State’s positive obligations or that the decision not to grant him compensation had deprived the applicant of his right to reputation and had, thereby, voided his right under Article 8 of its effective content.

As regards the legal costs, the domestic courts had not accepted all of the applicant’s claims and concluded that each party should bear its own legal costs in the light of the outcome of the case and the facts as a whole. Hence the issue of legal costs had not been handled in a manner that appeared unreasonable or disproportionate.

The national authorities had therefore not failed in their positive obligations towards the applicant and he had been afforded sufficient protection under Article 8 of the Convention.

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