Information Note on the Court’s case-law 54
June 2003
Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark - 49017/99
Judgment 19.6.2003 [Section I]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Conviction of producers of television programmes for defamation of a senior police officer: no violation
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of criminal proceedings: no violation
[This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 3 December 2003]
Facts: The applicants produced two television programmes in 1990/1991 concerning the 1982 conviction of X. for murder. X. had been released from prison shortly before the first programme after serving almost eight years of a twelve-year sentence and had applied for his case to be reopened. In the television programmes, the conduct of the police investigation was strongly criticised. The second applicant interviewed a witness who maintained that she had told the police at the time that she had seen X. and his son at a particular place. After the interview, the commentator named the Chief Superintendent in charge of the investigation in the context of a series of rhetorical questions. A photograph of the officer was also shown. X. was subsequently granted a re-trial and acquitted. The applicants were then charged with defamation. On appeal, the High Court convicted them. It imposed a fine and ordered them to pay compensation. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and increased the award of compensation.
Law
Article 6 § 1 – Making an overall assessment, the Court found that the proceedings, which lasted over 5 years and 9 months, had not exceeded a reasonable time.
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one).
Article 10 – The applicants had taken a stand on the truth of the taxi driver’s statement and presented the matter in such a way that viewers were given the impression that the police had suppressed her account. Their reference to the Chief Superintendent constituted an accusation which could not, even with the most liberal interpretation, be understood as a value-judgment. It therefore constituted a factual statement. The allegation emanated from the applicants themselves and it was therefore necessary to examine whether they had acted in good faith and complied with the ordinary obligation to verify the statement. The Supreme Court had found that the veracity of the allegation had never been proved and the applicants had relied on one witness, without checking the accuracy of her statement properly. The Court therefore found it doubtful that the applicants’ research was adequate or sufficient to substantiate their allegation that the Chief Superintendent had deliberately suppressed a vital fact in a murder case. The Supreme Court had carried out a proper balancing exercise and was entitled to consider that the measure was necessary in a democratic society.
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