Information Note on the Court’s case-law 66
July 2004
Hrico v. Slovakia - 49418/99
Judgment 20.7.2004 [Section IV]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Conviction of a publisher/editor for publishing a series of articles criticising a Supreme Court judge: violation
Facts: The applicant, who was the publisher/editor-in-chief of a weekly, published a number of articles in his weekly concerning the conviction by the Supreme Court of a well-known poet in defamation proceedings (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no 29032/95, judgment of 12 July 2001). The articles generally supported the statements which the poet had made against a former Minister, considering them as facts, and expressed regret about his conviction by the Supreme Court. The judgment was questioned and strong criticism was in particular expressed towards the Supreme Court judge who had presided the case. The Supreme Court judge filed an action against the applicant claiming an interference with his personality rights. The District Court found that the applicant had exceeded the limits of objective and acceptable criticism by using strong language and terms such as “shameful judgment”, “legal farce”, “strange reasoning” etc., and ordered him to publish an apology in the weekly and to pay the judge compensation. The Regional Court overturned the first instance judgment in appeal proceedings. However, that decision was subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court, and in a new decision the Regional Court upheld the judge’s claim, ordering the applicant to pay compensation but not obliging him to publish an apology.
Law: Article 10 – As it was not disputed that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining the authority of the judiciary and the protection of the reputation of the judge concerned, the only point at issue was whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. Given that the judge was an electoral candidate of the Christian-Social Union party, a party which had a clear stance on matters which were related to the case the Supreme Court was examining, the view expressed in the applicant’s weekly that the judge should have withdrawn from the case could be seen as a value judgment on a matter of public interest, which was not devoid of a factual basis. Admittedly, the terms employed had been strong, but the limits of acceptable criticism were wider in respect of a judge who was involved in politics. Moreover, journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration. As a whole, it could not be said that the purpose of the statements had been to offend, humiliate or discredit the criticised judge. In these circumstances, the reasons adduced by the domestic courts to justify the interference could not be regarded as “sufficient”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 2,500 euros under both heads of damage. It also made an award for costs and expenses.
© 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