Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 110
July 2008
Flux v. Moldova (no. 6) - 22824/04
Judgment 29.7.2008 [Section IV]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Unprofessional conduct of a newspaper in publishing two articles defamatory of a high school principal: no violation
Facts: The applicant newspaper published an anonymous letter that had allegedly been received from a group of students’ parents concerning a local high school. The letter criticised the situation in the school, in particular the spending of its funds by the principal and allegations that he had received bribes for enrolling children in the school. The school principal then published a reply to that article in another newspaper, since the applicant refused to do so. Subsequently, the applicant published another article explaining why it had refused to publish that reply. At the same time, it also accused the principal of taking bribes and gave a concrete example of a person who had contacted the applicant in response to its first article. The principal then brought proceedings for defamation against the applicant. Despite hearing three witnesses confirming the existence of bribery, the court found in favour of the principal after concluding that those witnesses’ statements were not sufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the principal, which could only have been rebutted in criminal proceedings. It ordered the applicant to publish an apology and pay the principal EUR 88 for non-pecuniary damage. Subsequent appeals against that judgment were to no avail.
Law: The Court accepted the applicant’s argument that it was impossible to dissociate the two articles it had published on the matter at issue and decided to consider them together. Despite the seriousness of the accusations contained in the anonymous letter, the applicant’s journalists had made no attempt to contact the principal or to ask his opinion on the matter, nor did it appear that they had made any form of investigation into the issues mentioned in the letter. Moreover, the applicant had refused to publish the principal’s reply to the letter, considering it offensive, whereas there was nothing in the language used to justify such a conclusion. As to the second article published following the principal’s reply, having regard to the repetition of certain accusations already contained in the anonymous letter, it was considered more as a form of reprisal against the persons who had questioned the newspaper’s professionalism. The tone of the article indicated a degree of mockery and the article itself suggested an alleged personal relationship between the principal and a teacher, without any evidence to that end. The Court disagreed with the domestic courts’ assertion that allegations of serious misconduct such as bribery first had to be proved in criminal proceedings. However, it reiterated that the right to freedom of expression should not be perceived as conferring on newspapers an absolute right to act in an irresponsible manner by charging individuals with criminal acts in the absence of a basis in fact at the material time. Taking into consideration the unprofessional conduct of the applicant and the relatively modest award of damages it had been required to pay, the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the competing interests of the applicant and its opponent.
Conclusion: no violation (four votes to three).
© 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